The Qualitative Impact Assessment Protocol
The QuIP addresses the issue of how to attribute changes to different stakeholders or events, whilst minimising pro-project and other sources of bias, and avoiding the need to interview a control group. It is designed to work alongside existing quantitative monitoring of key indicators, adding qualitative, self-reported attribution of impact to provide sufficient evidence to test the theory of change behind the activity being evaluated.
Put simply, the QuIP provides a straightforward and cost-effective mechanism to ask intended beneficiaries about significant drivers of change in their lives, and to analyse and present the data collected. A short briefing paper can be downloaded here.
If you are interested in conducting a QuIP we suggest that you browse our extensive Resources section, and please contact us to check whether you require a license. Bath SDR Ltd uses the QuIP methodology and name under license from the University of Bath. Use of the methodology without a license is limited to small non-profit organisations who are likely to be exempt. Please contact us at email@example.com and we will confirm the terms of the license.
There are strong ethical grounds for asking people directly about the effect of actions intended to benefit them, and doing so can also contribute practically to detailed learning, innovation and wider accountability within your organisation. However, this approach entails finding credible ways to address potential response biases. The QuIP does so by arranging for qualitative data collection to take place without any reference to the project being evaluated, ensuring that field researchers and respondents are not briefed on the project being evaluated and thereby reducing confirmation bias as much as possible up to the point of data analysis. The analysis is then carried out by a separate party, who is fully briefed and can therefore interrogate and code the data against the theory of change. The aim of separating these roles is to ensure that the analysis remains as independent as possible.
The second key problem with recording detailed feedback from beneficiaries is what to do with all the data? Qualitative information is difficult to process, analyse and condense into a credible and transparent report. We have developed a simple and semi-automated approach to coding QuIP data which allows for easy analysis and reporting, ensuring that reports are brief, readable and that the frequency of findings cited and the source data are completely transparent. The coding system is detailed in the briefing paper and full guidelines.
By creating a systematic approach, we have speeded up the time required to undertake the assessment – thereby reducing the costs considerably. Whilst it isn’t possible to fix a price on a QuIP as every country has different costs, it is safe to say that it will cost a fraction of the cost of randomised controlled trial, or any assessment requiring a control group. The following timings may help calculate approximate costs:
- 1 week of design and preparation
- 2 weeks of 2 field researchers’ time, both in the field and writing up
- 1 week of analysis and writing up
Development of the QuIP
An early version of the QuIP was originally developed and trialled by researchers at the University of Bath more than a decade ago. It was extensively redesigned and upgraded during the course of a three year ESRC/DFID funded research project at the Centre for Development Studies between 2012-2015. This project was called ‘Assessing Rural Transformations’ – known as ART – and involved working with two international NGOs, Self Help Africa and Farm Africa. We trialled the QuIP to assess the impact of four rural development projects in Malawi and Ethiopia, all projects which aimed to strengthen rural livelihoods and food security in the context of both rapid commercialisation and climate change.
The quantitative monitoring tool used in the ART project was Evidence for Development’s Individual Household Method. This measured changes in factors contributing to household disposable income relative to basic food needs.
The qualitative assessment was conducted using the QuIP, generating evidence of impact based on narrative causal statements from intended project beneficiaries. The QuIP looked for evidence of attribution through respondents’ own accounts of links between change in their lives and the activities or external factors they considered significant in that change. The output for each project was a brief report summarising the key drivers of change and highlighting evidence of links to the theory of change, or obvious gaps where links were expected. Two examples of these reports are available to download, one from Malawi and one from Ethiopia.
Following the end of the ART research project, CDS staff set up Bath SDR Ltd to continue to develop the QuIP and provide a training and consultancy service. We have subsequently conducted a number of QuIP studies in a range of different countries and contexts.