Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Participatory Poverty Assessment× | Most Significant Change for Development× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | Development Studies | Development Studies |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 2000 | 2005 |
| Autor original≠ | World Bank (Deepa Narayan; Caroline Robb); building on Robert Chambers's participatory tradition | Rick Davies & Jess Dart |
| Tipo≠ | Participatory qualitative poverty analysis method | Participatory, story-based monitoring and evaluation technique |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank. ISBN: 9780195216011 | Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. CARE International, Oxfam, et al. link ↗ |
| Outros nomes | PPA, Participatory Poverty Study, Voices of the Poor Method, Participatory Poverty Diagnosis | MSC technique, Story-based monitoring, Most significant change stories, Monitoring without indicators |
| Relacionados | 4 | 4 |
| Resumo≠ | A Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) is an instrument for understanding poverty from the perspective of poor people themselves, using participatory methods to elicit their own definitions, experiences, and priorities rather than imposing externally fixed indicators. Pioneered by the World Bank in the 1990s and made famous by the multi-country 'Voices of the Poor' study, the PPA combines participatory rural appraisal tools with a deliberate concern to influence policy, complementing rather than replacing the quantitative household surveys on which official poverty measurement rests. | The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a participatory, story-based approach to monitoring and evaluating development programmes that dispenses with predefined indicators. Developed by Rick Davies and elaborated with Jess Dart in their widely used 2005 guide, it works by systematically collecting stories of significant change from those closest to a programme and then filtering and selecting the most significant of them through deliberative panels at successive levels of the organisational hierarchy. The result is a structured, dialogical account of what stakeholders themselves judge to be the most important outcomes of an intervention. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|