Guidance note for Inception Reports - UN Women

2. Evaluation framework
2 Evaluation f
Discuss the overall approach of the evaluation, highlighting the type of the evaluation and the
conceptual model(s) adopted. This should incorporate an analysis of the intervention logic of the
programme. 8 The intervention’s theory of change includes attention to GE and HR.
Discuss risks and limitations that may undermine the reliability and validity of the evaluation
results. This can also include access to informants and to documents, and foreseeable difficulties.
3. Evaluation methodology
Review existing data. List interviews, questionnaires, field notes, scientific testing, surveys,
reviews of literature, or whatever data collection methods used during the programme planning,
implementation and monitoring, and use charts, graphs, and lists to effectively display data that
has already been collected, if any.
Specify indicators for each question that will be used as a guide in answering the question. List
additional indicators on GE and HR if they are not clearly articulated.
Discuss the data collection and data analysis methods that will be used for each question. State
the limitations for each method. Include the level of precision required for quantitative methods
and value scales or coding used for qualitative methods. Standard data collection methods for
UN Women evaluations are: surveys, questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, document review
and observation. Other new and innovative methods e.g. debates, photography, video records,
log diaries, rating scales, knowledge test, are also encouraged to use.
Pure or mixed methods design. 9 Determine whether the evaluation will be purely
qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed method design with both qualitative and
quantitative data. If the evaluation team chooses mixed methods, plan to synthesize
qualitative and quantitative information.
(For qualitative methods) Discuss qualitative design strategies and details. Describe
qualitative design strategies, data collection options, and analysis approaches.
Determine which qualitative evaluation applications are especially appropriate given the
evaluation’s purpose and priorities. 10
8 The Evaluation Unit (EU) has recently noticed some confusion with “Theory of Change” – in some cases, there is a
misunderstanding that a “Theory of Change” is supposed to be developed by the evaluation team rather than
developing it at the programme planning phase. When a “Theory of Change” does not exist, the evaluation team
could reconstruct it during the inception phase, but this is not standard practice.
9 Evaluating human rights and gender equality should use both quantitative and qualitative methods. The former
can give credible information about the extent of results for particular groups of stakeholders, while the latter can
assist in explaining how those results are achieved. (Please see UNEG Handbook for Integrating Human Rights and
Gender Equality Perspectives in Evaluations in the UN System)
10 For qualitative evaluation checklist, “Qualitative Evaluation Checklist” by Michael Quinn Patton is useful:
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/qec.pdf
4