Improving the quality of development assistance

Martin Prowse and Laura Camfield
Additional contact information
Martin Prowse: Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark
Laura Camfield: School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, UK

Progress in Development Studies, 2013, vol. 13, issue 1, 51-61

Abstract: While randomized experiments can be valuable tools in evaluating aid effectiveness, research designs limit the role of qualitative methods to ‘field visits’ or description of contexts. This article suggests expanding the role of qualitative methods and highlights their advantages and limitations relative to survey methods. It reviews a range of qualitative methods and suggests that life histories are compatible with the internal and external validity criteria of randomized experiments. It illustrates this with a case study of their proposed use in an evaluation of the promotion of Jatropha curcas , a second-generation biofuel, in Malawi.

Keywords: randomized experiments; qualitative methods; methodology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/146499341201300104 (text/html)

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:sae:prodev:v:13:y:2013:i:1:p:51-61

DOI: 10.1177/146499341201300104

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Progress in Development Studies
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().