Порівняння методів

	Participatory Impact Assessment	Most Significant Change for Development
Галузь	Development Studies	Development Studies
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	2014	2005
Автор методу	Andy Catley and colleagues, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University	Rick Davies & Jess Dart
Тип	Participatory project impact assessment method	Participatory, story-based monitoring and evaluation technique
Основоположне джерело	Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D., & Suji, O. (2014). Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide. Somerville, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University.	Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. CARE International, Oxfam, et al.
Інші назви	PIA, Participatory Impact Evaluation, Community-Based Impact Assessment, Participatory Impact Measurement	MSC technique, Story-based monitoring, Most significant change stories, Monitoring without indicators
Пов'язані	4	4
Підсумок	Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) is an approach to measuring the impact of development and humanitarian projects in which the affected communities define the indicators of change and use participatory tools to quantify it. Developed and codified by Andy Catley and colleagues at Tufts University's Feinstein International Center, largely through work on livestock and livelihoods programmes in pastoralist settings, PIA adapts participatory rural appraisal methods to the disciplined logic of impact evaluation — combining locally meaningful indicators with before-and-after and with-and-without comparisons to assess what a project actually changed.	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.