New paper: Beneficiary feedback in evaluation

May 13, 2015 at 6:35 am 1 comment

DFID have released a new paper on the practice of beneficiary feedback in evaluation (pdf).

The paper highlights five key messages (listed below), with a main point being that beneficiaries are often only seen as a provider of data and aren’t given a broader role in the evaluation process – a point I can confirm from having been involved in many evaluations.

Rather ironically, the DFID study on beneficiary feedback includes no feedback from beneficiaries on the study…

Key Message 1: Lack of definitional clarity has led to a situation where the term beneficiary feedback is subject to vastly differing interpretations and levels of ambition within evaluation.

Key Message 2: There is a shared, normative value that it is important to hear from those who are affected by an intervention about their experiences. However, in practice this has been translated into beneficiary as data provider, rather than beneficiary as having a role to play in design, data validation and analysis and dissemination and communication.

Key Message 3: It is possible to adopt a meaningful, appropriate and robust approach to beneficiary feedback at key stages of the evaluation process, if not in all of them.

Key Message 4: It is recommended that a minimum standard is put in place. This minimum standard would require that evaluation commissioners and evaluators give due consideration to applying a beneficiary feedback approach at each of the four key stages of the evaluation process.

Key Message 5: A beneficiary feedback approach to evaluation does not in any way negate the need to give due consideration to the best combination of methods for collecting reliable data from beneficiaries and sourcing evidence from other sources.

View the full paper here (pdf)>>

Entry filed under: Evaluation methodology.

Geneva event of systematic reviews and evaluation – 7 May 2015 Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy toolkit

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. smcclen  |  May 13, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Thanks, very interesting. Trying to follow, at least superficially, all the responses to some questions asked by Pélican members, it’s obvious the ‘levels of ambition’ certainly do vary hugely.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,160 other subscribers



%d bloggers like this: