Anthropology and impact evaluation: a critical commentary

Abstract

Quantitative and quasi-experimental methods have become popular in the evaluation of development impact. In response, several commentators have argued for more effective use of ‘mixed methods’. This paper engages with, and builds upon, this current criticism of more quantitatively based impact evaluation from the disciplinary perspective of anthropology. Focusing on one specific evaluation, of an irrigation project in Malawi, it asks what was missed and what was misunderstood in the quantitative focus that was adopted. The paper then reflects on the wider question that is raised of how particular methods and perspectives can take centre stage and produce apparent ‘truths’ even in the face of evidence pointing in opposite directions. The overall argument is that this is a matter of the politics of knowledge production and of how particular disciplinary perspectives may come to dominate.