Comments on: The political implications of evidence-based approaches (aka start of this week’s wonkwar on the results agenda)

By: John Donnelly

John Donnelly — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 04:01:18 +0000

Well said Duncan. Where do I read Chris Roche etc? The point you make, that poverty reduction is not a technical problem but requires significant social change, and that this social change is, and must be, both political and locally led.’ is a good one. Unfortunately Oxfam, like most INGOs does not practice this very well. Country offices ‘top heavy’ with expats are the norm, especially in the Pacific – not too much ‘locally led’.

By: Sergio Cooper Teixeira

Sergio Cooper Teixeira — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:03:14 +0000

To Rob levy (@aid_complexity)

On Alan Moore, respectfully:

“Beautiful prose
But,
What does he propose?”

By: Michael Edwards

Michael Edwards — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:40:23 +0000

Oh, and thanks to Rob Levy for pointing us to that fabulous New Statesman article by Alan Moore. Do read it if you have a moment away from collecting all that evidence. My favorite line? “A lead pipe, in and of itself, is after all just a lead pipe and needs considerable human interpretaion to connnect it to Professor Plum and the conservatory. It is in this dependence on the unreliable perceptions and concealed agendas of an individual that we finally identify the weak spot of this domineering thug, evidence.”

By: Michael Edwards

Michael Edwards — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:48:41 +0000

ok I’ll find some other way to manipulate the evidence then! (to interpret the evidence, gather the evidence, use the evidence, value the evidence, construct the evidence, trust the evidence etc. etc. etc.).

By: Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:31:00 +0000

computer will say no Mike – one vote per console!

By: Michael Edwards

Michael Edwards — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:05:42 +0000

If I keep clicking in support of Ros and Chris so that they have more votes, does this count as evidence that they are right?

By: Michael Edwards

Michael Edwards — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:02:24 +0000

If I keep clicking in support of Ros and Chris so that they have more votes, does this count as evidence?

By: Rob levy (@aid_complexity)

Rob levy (@aid_complexity) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:31:30 +0000

This seems like a call to forget trying to understand developing societies and just jolly well get on and design programmes and "do" development. Makes me think of this brilliant quote from Forrester trying to counter this exact argument:

Our social systems are far more complex and harder to understand than our technological systems. Why, then, do we not use the same approach of making models of social systems and conducting laboratory experiments on those models before we try new laws and government programs in real life? The answer is often stated that our knowledge of social systems is insufficient for constructing useful models. But what justification can there be for the apparent assumption that we do not know enough to construct models but believe we do know enough to directly design new social systems by passing laws and starting new social programs?/em>

Ha ha! Amazing stuff...

By: Rob levy (@aid_complexity)

Rob levy (@aid_complexity) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:16:21 +0000

For a more entertaining take on the “pernicious” role of evidence in modern life, see this beautifully written (but rather long) extended sketch from V for Vendetta author Alan Moore in the New Statesman from a few weeks ago.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/education/2012/12/goebbels-english-language

By: Jake Allen

Jake Allen — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:34:33 +0000

Good stuff. Of course, just to nudget things a little further down the rabbit hole, another issue with power analysis and ‘gold standard’ asssessments is that we tend to do them ourselves, and so end up with the danger of Gareth’s ‘I scored myself a 9′ (or indeed ‘I scored myself a 1′). We’re trying hard to make power analysis a core of what we do, but to do it properly, which i think does involve allowing our partners/beneficiaries/principals (what else are we calling them now??) ‘do power’ to us. What little insight we have to this so far has been refreshing.

But then also to play devil’s advocate on the gold standard stuff – speaking specifically on the example of the BOND effectiveness criteria – i don’t think that the idea of this was we set up a system whereby we are able to take something and say ‘behold! this is the gold standard, now follow ye this!’, but rather to be better, espcially in hard to measure arena, at showing that our assertions and results are ‘good enough’, and at least meet A standard that THEN enables us to look more deeply at what’s going on. It’s not perfect for sure, but the alternative is that we just get lost in the argument before the evidence is even on the table. The case continues…