Abstract
Research-for-development (R4D) refers to research activities specifically designed to address critical social, environmental, and economic challenges and improve human well-being. It is essential to have well-designed indicators to monitor and evaluate progress, guide decision-making, and support learning and improvement. This paper reviews and compares two sets of indicators in use by a large international research consortium: i) ad hoc indicators developed by and for individual (non-pooled) projects, and ii) a standard set of indicators designed as part of a common results framework for a new portfolio of research initiatives. We assess both sets of indicators against the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) criteria, identify common errors in indicator formulation, compare the thematic coverage of the two sets of indicators, and derive lessons for improved indicator formulation. A large proportion of the non-pooled indicators fail to meet the SMART criteria. The indicators in the standard set are stronger, but with scope for improvement, especially in terms of relationship to the result of interest, specification of the indicator, measurability, standardization of outcome indicators, and impact indicators. We recommend having a balanced set of indicators of key outputs, outcomes, and impacts, based on clear and well-defined result statements.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
