Pitfalls of “slippery indicators”: the importance of reading between the lines

Julia Fischer-Mackey and Jonathan Fox

Development in Practice, 2023, vol. 33, issue 6, 665-674

Abstract: Within the field of social accountability, studies about “community monitoring” have made broad claims about “what works” – or not – in practice, with significant implications for practitioners and policymakers. Interpretation of these findings is complicated when studies rely on “slippery indicators” that do not measure the real-world processes they claim to address. This article illustrates the problem of slippery indicators, which has two main elements. First, some studies rely on indicators that do not actually measure community monitoring. Second, studies that claim to show a failure of community monitoring to deliver improvements may actually show a failure to deliver community monitoring in the first place. While complex research methods may obscure these two related problems, readers can still assess whether studies’ claims are supported by their empirical data by checking whether the findings are grounded in indicators that actually measure what they claim to study.

Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614524.2022.2104220 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:cdipxx:v:33:y:2023:i:6:p:665-674

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cdip20

DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2022.2104220

Access Statistics for this article

Development in Practice is currently edited by Emily Finlay

More articles in Development in Practice from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().