Profile14
Contents
- 1 Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment
- 1.1 Applications (why, when & where)
- 1.2 Brief description
- 1.3
- 1.4 Where in the project cycle is this useful?
- 1.5 Spatial scale
- 1.6 Extractive/non-extractive
- 1.7 Complexity
- 1.8 Outcomes
- 1.9 Strengths
- 1.10 Drawbacks
- 1.11 Illustrations
- 1.12 Issues
- 1.13 Resources
- 1.14 Origins and history
- 1.15 Conditions for use and dissemination
- 1.16 Contacts
- 1.17 Learn more about this topic
Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment
Applications (why, when & where)
Participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA) is a project planning and monitoring and evaluation approach. It is a relatively young and experimental approach that draws from program theory evaluation, social network analysis and research to understand and foster innovation. It is designed to help the people involved in a project, program or organization make explicit their theories of change, in other words how they see themselves achieving their goals and having impact (Douthwaite, 2008).
Brief description
PIPA begins with a participatory workshop where stakeholders make explicit their assumptions of how their project will achieve an impact. Participants construct problem trees, carry out a visioning exercise and draw network maps to help them clarify their ‘impact pathways’. These are then articulated in two logic models. The outcomes logic model describes the project’s medium term objectives in the form of hypotheses: which actors need to change, what are those changes and which strategies are needed to realise these changes. The impact logic model describes how, by helping to achieve the expected outcomes, the project will impact on people’s livelihoods. Participants derive outcome targets and milestones which are regularly revisited and revised as part of project monitoring and evaluation. PIPA goes beyond logframes and the traditional use of logic models such as those commonly used by the CGIAR System by engaging stakeholders in a structured participatory process, promoting learning and providing a framework for ‘action research’ on processes of change (Douthwaite, 2008).
Where in the project cycle is this useful?
A planning tool, but does it really make a change to the outcomes?
Spatial scale
Matches the project scale.
Extractive/non-extractive
Not extractive.
Complexity
Moderately complex.
For those applying the tool:
For participants:
Outcomes
- Diagnostic
- Monitoring
Strengths
PIPA goes beyond the traditional use of logic models and log frames by engaging stakeholders in a structured participatory process, promoting learning and providing a framework for ‘action research’ on processes of change. The two logic models provide predictions of future impact that can be used in priority setting. They also provide impact hypotheses required for ex-post impact assessment. The specification of impact pathways, using PIPA or outcome mapping, is now a recommended good practice in the CGIAR for monitoring and evaluation and as a precursor activity to ex-post impact assessment.
Drawbacks
- Needs cross-referencing with other methods.
- Outputs depend on “who is in the room”.
Illustrations
Organizations using PIPA:
USAID
Oxfam
International Potato Center
International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Issues
- Validation is defining problem.
- How to measure impact of tool and projects.
Resources
Time:
Human resources:
Costing:
Origins and history
Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) was first used in a workshop in January 2006 in Ghana, with seven projects funded by the "Challenge Program on Water and Food".[2] Nine PIPA workshops have been held since then for 46 projects. Researchers from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture,WorldFish Center and International Potato Center are developing PIPA. PIPA developed from innovation histories and work carried out by the Institutional Learning and Change Initiative.
Conditions for use and dissemination
None.
Contacts
Adrian Ely STEPS Centre [a.v.ely@sussex.ac.uk] |
Learn more about this topic
Visit the [https:www.google.la/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FParticipatory_impact_pathways_analysis&ei=Lnm2UqmFJYTsiAfuqIHACg&usg=AFQjCNGjn4bsYeEWaecyVf12zLBtUkJO0w&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aGc| Participatory impact pathways analysis][https:www.google.la/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FParticipatory_impact_pathways_analysis&ei=Lnm2UqmFJYTsiAfuqIHACg&usg=AFQjCNGjn4bsYeEWaecyVf12zLBtUkJO0w&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aGc| - Wikipedia] page.
References
Alvarez, S. and B. Douthwaite 2009. Impact assessment of research in the CPWF. CPWF Project Report. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.
Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Cook, R., Davies, P., George, J., Howell, R., Mackay and J. Rubiano, J. 2008. Participatory impact pathway analysis: A practical application of program theory in research-for-development. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 22, 127-159.
Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thielel, G. and Mackay, R. 2008. Participatory impact pathways analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. ILAC Brief No. 17. Maccarese: Institutional Learning and Change Initiative.
Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the fifth discipline. London and New York: Routledge.
Harrington, L.W., Gichuki, F., Bouman, B.A.M., Johnson, N., Ringler, C., Sugunan, V., Geheb K. and Woolley, J. 2006. CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, Changing the way we manage water for food, livelihoods, health and the environment: Synthesis 2005. CPWF Synthesis Report. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.
Rbiano, J. and Garcia, J. 2009. Improving knowledge for targeting interventions: willingness of individuals to participate and calculation of institutional environmental indices. Working Draft. Schiffer, E. 2007. The power mapping tool: A method for the empirical research of power relations. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00703. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.