A commentary: Using a theory-based approach to guide a global programme of FGM/C research: What have we learned about creating actionable research findings?

Jacinta Muteshi Strachan

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2021, vol. 88, issue C

Abstract: The ‘Evidence to End FGM/C: Research to Help Girls and Women Thrive’ programme created a research consortium that brought together African institutions and the world’s leading and most experienced researchers in Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) abandonment. The priority countries for research were Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, and Sudan, given their stages of abandonment, the scale of the practice, and socio-cultural variations. Given the ambitious scope of the research component, the consortium outlined a theory of change (ToC). The ToC was designed to facilitate an exploration of the attendant complexities of researching a social practice underpinned with political and religious sensitivities and strong links to individual, family and community identity. Overall, we believe that efforts to encourage FGM/C abandonment would be more effective, more efficient and with greater value for money if a theory of change were used routinely to inform research, programming and evaluation design. This commentary contributes to this goal by documenting our experiences with using a theory of change in designing and implementing research to inform the uptake of research for the design and evaluation of FGM/C interventions. A substantial portfolio of robust evidence is now online. This evidence provides new knowledge, insights, methods, and tools that are valuable to diverse end-users such as researchers, programme implementers, the health, legal and education systems, governments, donors, and the media. A vibrant South-South and South-North collaboration has been built fostering strong working relationships with government ministries and programme/policymakers in the priority countries.

Keywords: Theory of change; Female genital mutilation-cutting; Planning; Implementing research; Achieving research outcomes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892100063X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:epplan:v:88:y:2021:i:c:s014971892100063x

DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101968

Access Statistics for this article

Evaluation and Program Planning is currently edited by Jonathan A. Morell

More articles in Evaluation and Program Planning from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().