Participatory Impact Assessment - Capacity4Dev

STAGE FOUR:
METHODS
This section provides both real life and hypothetical examples of how different methods have been
or might be used to measure project impact on livelihoods. The exact tools used in these examples
may or may not be transferable to other projects or assessments. However, they should provide an
overview of how participatory tools can be adapted and applied in different contexts to measure
the impact of different types of projects. For additional resource materials on participatory tools
and methods see Annex 1.
Once you have identified your impact indicators, you will need to decide which methods should
be used to measure changes in these indicators. Some useful methods which can be used to
measure impact or change numerically include, simple ranking and scoring, “before” and
“after” scoring, pair-wise ranking and matrix scoring, impact calendars, radar diagrams, and
proportional piling. All these methods involve the use of semi-structured interviews as part of the
method. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses, and some methods are more appropriate
for certain cultures and contexts. It is important to field test your methods with community
members before the assessment.
© Abebe 2007 © Burns 2007
Ranking and scoring methods
Ranking and scoring methods require informants to assess the relative importance of different
items. Ranking usually involves placing items in order of importance (1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd etc.) whereas
scoring methods assign a value or a score to a specific item. This is usually done by using
counters such as seeds or stones, nuts or beans to attribute a specific score to each item or
indicator. Proportional piling and scoring techniques can be used to assess the relationship
between two or more given variables; these may include indicators of project impact. For
proportional piling informants are asked to distribute one hundred counters amongst the different
variables or indicators, with the largest number of counters being assigned to the most important
indicator, and the smallest number of counters being assigned to the least important indicator.
26