some thought to what lies between solid science, great technologies, and their
positive developmental impact. A mix of an outcome-focused TOC with people
and partners at the core, and a RBM approach that allows us to monitor, reflect,
evaluate, and learn, are key elements for a programmatic MEL strategy – coupled
with great science.
4.13 Conclusion
Requests by funding agencies for a move towards outcome-oriented research programs are having considerable impact on the way in which research is conceived,
planned, implemented and evaluated. A key requirement for such work is flexibility
– the flexibility to adjust so that the outcome orientation works as a support
mechanism and enabler rather than a one-size-fits-all straitjacket without any
space for innovation, serendipity and creativity. The shift to a R4D approach
based on TOC is fostering massive change, much of it for the better, in our view.
However, it also comes with considerable challenges. Defining the necessary
changes, and developing new processes and mechanisms, need time and resources,
which are often grossly underestimated and inadequately planned for. Some of
these challenges arise because of the nature of research: the results are not known
from the start, unlike in engineering where the outcomes are generally much less
uncertain. Another challenge is that CGIAR is a R4D organization, not a development organization, and it is still in the process of sorting out how to balance the
need to do great science with the need for impact. We need to avoid the resultsbased focus being to the disadvantage of the science, and development being seen to
be in competition with the science. Rather, they need to be seen as complementary,
enabling, and liberating.
References
Alvarez, S., Jost, C., Schuetz, T., F€ orch, W., Schubert, C., & Kristjanson, P. (2014). Lessons in
theory of change from the introductory training on theories of change, impact pathways and
monitoring & evaluation (CCSL Learning Brief No. 10). Copenhagen: CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). http://hdl.handle.net/
10568/52992.
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In
R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing
management research (pp. 141–156). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bester, A. (2012). Results-based management in the United Nations Development System: Progress and challenges. A report prepared for the United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, for the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review Final Report.
Binnendijk, A. (2000). Results-based management in the development co-operation agencies: A
review of experience. DAC Working Party on Aid Evaluation Report. OECD. www.oecd.org/
development/evaluation/dcdndep/31950852.pdf.
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
75
positive developmental impact. A mix of an outcome-focused TOC with people
and partners at the core, and a RBM approach that allows us to monitor, reflect,
evaluate, and learn, are key elements for a programmatic MEL strategy – coupled
with great science.
4.13 Conclusion
Requests by funding agencies for a move towards outcome-oriented research programs are having considerable impact on the way in which research is conceived,
planned, implemented and evaluated. A key requirement for such work is flexibility
– the flexibility to adjust so that the outcome orientation works as a support
mechanism and enabler rather than a one-size-fits-all straitjacket without any
space for innovation, serendipity and creativity. The shift to a R4D approach
based on TOC is fostering massive change, much of it for the better, in our view.
However, it also comes with considerable challenges. Defining the necessary
changes, and developing new processes and mechanisms, need time and resources,
which are often grossly underestimated and inadequately planned for. Some of
these challenges arise because of the nature of research: the results are not known
from the start, unlike in engineering where the outcomes are generally much less
uncertain. Another challenge is that CGIAR is a R4D organization, not a development organization, and it is still in the process of sorting out how to balance the
need to do great science with the need for impact. We need to avoid the resultsbased focus being to the disadvantage of the science, and development being seen to
be in competition with the science. Rather, they need to be seen as complementary,
enabling, and liberating.
References
Alvarez, S., Jost, C., Schuetz, T., F€ orch, W., Schubert, C., & Kristjanson, P. (2014). Lessons in
theory of change from the introductory training on theories of change, impact pathways and
monitoring & evaluation (CCSL Learning Brief No. 10). Copenhagen: CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). http://hdl.handle.net/
10568/52992.
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In
R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing
management research (pp. 141–156). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bester, A. (2012). Results-based management in the United Nations Development System: Progress and challenges. A report prepared for the United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, for the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review Final Report.
Binnendijk, A. (2000). Results-based management in the development co-operation agencies: A
review of experience. DAC Working Party on Aid Evaluation Report. OECD. www.oecd.org/
development/evaluation/dcdndep/31950852.pdf.
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
75