Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso

Authors: Léna D’Ostie-Racine, Christian Dagenais, Valéry Ridde

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Program evaluation is widely recognized in the international humanitarian sector as a means to make interventions and policies more evidence based, equitable, and accountable. Yet, little is known about the way humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) actually use evaluations.

Methods

The current qualitative evaluation employed an instrumental case study design to examine evaluation use (EU) by a humanitarian NGO based in Burkina Faso. This organization developed an evaluation strategy in 2008 to document the implementation and effects of its maternal and child healthcare user fee exemption program. Program evaluations have been undertaken ever since, and the present study examined the discourses of evaluation partners in 2009 (n = 15) and 2011 (n = 17). Semi-structured individual interviews and one group interview were conducted to identify instances of EU over time. Alkin and Taut’s (Stud Educ Eval 29:1–12, 2003) conceptualization of EU was used as the basis for thematic qualitative analyses of the different forms of EU identified by stakeholders of the exemption program in the two data collection periods.

Results

Results demonstrated that stakeholders began to understand and value the utility of program evaluations once they were exposed to evaluation findings and then progressively used evaluations over time. EU was manifested in a variety of ways, including instrumental and conceptual use of evaluation processes and findings, as well as the persuasive use of findings. Such EU supported planning, decision-making, program practices, evaluation capacity, and advocacy.

Conclusions

The study sheds light on the many ways evaluations can be used by different actors in the humanitarian sector. Conceptualizations of EU are also critically discussed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Darcy J, Knox Clarke P. Evidence & knowledge in humanitarian action. Background paper, 28th ALNAP meeting, Washington, DC, 5–7 March 2013. London: ALNAP; 2013. Darcy J, Knox Clarke P. Evidence & knowledge in humanitarian action. Background paper, 28th ALNAP meeting, Washington, DC, 5–7 March 2013. London: ALNAP; 2013.
2.
go back to reference Beck T. Evaluating humanitarian action: an ALNAP guidance booklet. London: ALNAP; 2003. Beck T. Evaluating humanitarian action: an ALNAP guidance booklet. London: ALNAP; 2003.
3.
go back to reference Crisp J. Thinking outside the box: evaluation and humanitarian action. Forced Migration Review. 2004;8:4–7. Crisp J. Thinking outside the box: evaluation and humanitarian action. Forced Migration Review. 2004;8:4–7.
4.
go back to reference Hallam A. Harnessing the power of evaluation in humanitarian action: An initiative to improve understanding and use of evaluation. ALNAP working paper. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2011. Hallam A. Harnessing the power of evaluation in humanitarian action: An initiative to improve understanding and use of evaluation. ALNAP working paper. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2011.
5.
go back to reference Hallam A, Bonino F. Using evaluation for a change: insights from humanitarian practitioners. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2013. Hallam A, Bonino F. Using evaluation for a change: insights from humanitarian practitioners. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2013.
7.
go back to reference Harveu P, Stoddard A, Harmer A, Taylor G, DiDomenico V, Brander L. The state of the humanitarian system: Assessing performance and progress. A pilot study. ALNAP working paper. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2010. Harveu P, Stoddard A, Harmer A, Taylor G, DiDomenico V, Brander L. The state of the humanitarian system: Assessing performance and progress. A pilot study. ALNAP working paper. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2010.
8.
10.
go back to reference Cousins JB, Shulha LM. A comparative analysis of evaluation utilization and its cognate fields of enquiry. In: Shaw I, Greene JC, Mark M, editors. Handbook of evaluation: policies, programs and practices. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. p. 233–54. Cousins JB, Shulha LM. A comparative analysis of evaluation utilization and its cognate fields of enquiry. In: Shaw I, Greene JC, Mark M, editors. Handbook of evaluation: policies, programs and practices. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. p. 233–54.
12.
go back to reference Ridde V, Queuille L, Atchessi N, Samb O, Heinmüller R, Haddad S. The evaluation of an experiment in healthcare user fees exemption for vulnerable groups in Burkina Faso. Field ACTions Science Reports. 2012;Special issue 7:1–8. Ridde V, Queuille L, Atchessi N, Samb O, Heinmüller R, Haddad S. The evaluation of an experiment in healthcare user fees exemption for vulnerable groups in Burkina Faso. Field ACTions Science Reports. 2012;Special issue 7:1–8.
15.
go back to reference INSD. La région du Sahel en chiffres. Ouagadougou: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances; 2010. INSD. La région du Sahel en chiffres. Ouagadougou: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances; 2010.
16.
go back to reference World Health Organization. World health statistics 2007. Geneva: WHO; 2007. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2007. Geneva: WHO; 2007.
17.
go back to reference World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2014. Geneva: WHO; 2014. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2014. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
18.
go back to reference Traoré C. Préface. In: Ridde V, Queuille L, Kafando Y, editors. Capitalisation de politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest. Ouagadougou: CRCHUM/HELP/ECHO; 2012. p. 5–8. Traoré C. Préface. In: Ridde V, Queuille L, Kafando Y, editors. Capitalisation de politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest. Ouagadougou: CRCHUM/HELP/ECHO; 2012. p. 5–8.
19.
go back to reference Ridde V, Robert E, Meessen B. A literature review of the disruptive effects of user fee exemption policies on health systems. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ridde V, Robert E, Meessen B. A literature review of the disruptive effects of user fee exemption policies on health systems. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Olivier de Sardan JP, Ridde V. Public policies and health systems in Sahelian Africa: theoretical context and empirical specificity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Olivier de Sardan JP, Ridde V. Public policies and health systems in Sahelian Africa: theoretical context and empirical specificity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Ridde V. From institutionalization of user fees to their abolition in West Africa: a story of pilot projects and public policies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ridde V. From institutionalization of user fees to their abolition in West Africa: a story of pilot projects and public policies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Ridde V, Queuille L. Capitaliser pour apprendre et changer les politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest: une (r)évolution en cours? In: Ridde V, Queuille L, Kafando Y, editors. Capitalisation de politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest. Ouagadougou: CRCHUM/HELP/ECHO; 2012. p. 9–14. Ridde V, Queuille L. Capitaliser pour apprendre et changer les politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest: une (r)évolution en cours? In: Ridde V, Queuille L, Kafando Y, editors. Capitalisation de politiques publiques d'exemption du paiement des soins en Afrique de l'Ouest. Ouagadougou: CRCHUM/HELP/ECHO; 2012. p. 9–14.
23.
go back to reference World Health Organization. World Report on Knowledge for Better Health: Strengthening Health Systems. Geneva: WHO; 2004. World Health Organization. World Report on Knowledge for Better Health: Strengthening Health Systems. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
24.
go back to reference International A. Burkina Faso: Giving life, risking death. Time for action to reduce maternal mortality in Burkina Faso. Index number: AFR 60/001/2010. London: Amnesty International; 2010. International A. Burkina Faso: Giving life, risking death. Time for action to reduce maternal mortality in Burkina Faso. Index number: AFR 60/001/2010. London: Amnesty International; 2010.
25.
go back to reference World Conference on Science. Excerpts from the declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Sci Commun. 1999;21(2):183–6.CrossRef World Conference on Science. Excerpts from the declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Sci Commun. 1999;21(2):183–6.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference World Health Organization. The World Health Report: Research for Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2013. World Health Organization. The World Health Report: Research for Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2013.
27.
go back to reference Ridde V, Diarra A, Moha M. User fees abolition policy in Niger. Comparing the under five years exemption implementation in two districts. Health Policy. 2011;99:219–25.CrossRefPubMed Ridde V, Diarra A, Moha M. User fees abolition policy in Niger. Comparing the under five years exemption implementation in two districts. Health Policy. 2011;99:219–25.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference D’Ostie-Racine L, Dagenais C, Ridde V. An evaluability assessment of a West Africa based non-governmental organization's (NGO) progressive evaluation strategy. Eval Program Plann. 2013;36(1):71–9.CrossRefPubMed D’Ostie-Racine L, Dagenais C, Ridde V. An evaluability assessment of a West Africa based non-governmental organization's (NGO) progressive evaluation strategy. Eval Program Plann. 2013;36(1):71–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Shulha LM, Cousins JB. Evaluation use: theory, research, and practice since 1986. Eval Pract. 1997;18(3):195–208.CrossRef Shulha LM, Cousins JB. Evaluation use: theory, research, and practice since 1986. Eval Pract. 1997;18(3):195–208.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Herbert JL. Researching evaluation influence: a review of the literature. Eval Rev. 2014;38(5):388–419.CrossRefPubMed Herbert JL. Researching evaluation influence: a review of the literature. Eval Rev. 2014;38(5):388–419.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2008. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2008.
32.
33.
go back to reference Alkin MC, Taut SM. Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval. 2003;29:1–12.CrossRef Alkin MC, Taut SM. Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval. 2003;29:1–12.CrossRef
34.
35.
go back to reference Leviton LC, Hughes EFX. Research on the utilization of evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5(4):525–48.CrossRef Leviton LC, Hughes EFX. Research on the utilization of evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5(4):525–48.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Weiss C. Introduction. In: Weiss C, Lexington MA, editors. Using Social Research in Pubic Policy Making. Lanham: Lexington Books; 1977. Weiss C. Introduction. In: Weiss C, Lexington MA, editors. Using Social Research in Pubic Policy Making. Lanham: Lexington Books; 1977.
37.
38.
go back to reference Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014.
39.
go back to reference Stake RE. Case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. Stake RE. Case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003.
40.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. New York: Sage; 1990. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. New York: Sage; 1990.
41.
go back to reference Olivier de Sardan JP. L’enquête socio-anthropologique de terrain : synthèse méthodologique et recommandations à usage des étudiants Niamey. Niger: LASDEL: Laboratoire d’études et recherches sur les dynamiques sociales et le développement local; 2003. Olivier de Sardan JP. L’enquête socio-anthropologique de terrain : synthèse méthodologique et recommandations à usage des étudiants Niamey. Niger: LASDEL: Laboratoire d’études et recherches sur les dynamiques sociales et le développement local; 2003.
42.
go back to reference Creswell JW, Plano CV. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. Creswell JW, Plano CV. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006.
43.
go back to reference Pires AP. Échantillonage et recherche qualitative: essai théorique et méthodologique. In: Poupart J, Deslauriers J-P, Groulx L-H, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires AP, editors. La recherche qualitative: Enjeux épisémologiques et méthodologiques. Montréal: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. p. 113–67. Pires AP. Échantillonage et recherche qualitative: essai théorique et méthodologique. In: Poupart J, Deslauriers J-P, Groulx L-H, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires AP, editors. La recherche qualitative: Enjeux épisémologiques et méthodologiques. Montréal: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. p. 113–67.
44.
go back to reference Stake RE. Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press; 2010. Stake RE. Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press; 2010.
45.
go back to reference Kitzinger J. The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illness. 1994;16(1):103–21.CrossRef Kitzinger J. The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illness. 1994;16(1):103–21.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1994. Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1994.
48.
go back to reference Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2002;1(2):1–19.CrossRef Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2002;1(2):1–19.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. New York: Sage; 2013. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. New York: Sage; 2013.
51.
go back to reference Ridde V, Diarra A. A process evaluation of user fees abolition for pregnant women and children under five years in two districts in Niger (West Africa). BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ridde V, Diarra A. A process evaluation of user fees abolition for pregnant women and children under five years in two districts in Niger (West Africa). BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
go back to reference Antarou L, Ridde V, Kouanda S, Queuille L. La charge de travail des agents de santé dans un contexte de gratuité des soins au Burkina Faso et au Niger [Health staff workload in a context of user fees exemption policy for health care in Burkina Faso and Niger]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2013;106(4):264–71.CrossRefPubMed Antarou L, Ridde V, Kouanda S, Queuille L. La charge de travail des agents de santé dans un contexte de gratuité des soins au Burkina Faso et au Niger [Health staff workload in a context of user fees exemption policy for health care in Burkina Faso and Niger]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2013;106(4):264–71.CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Samb O, Belaid L, Ridde V. Burkina Faso: la gratuité des soins aux dépens de la relation entre les femmes et les soignants? Humanitaire: Enjeux, pratiques, débats. 2013;35:4–43. Samb O, Belaid L, Ridde V. Burkina Faso: la gratuité des soins aux dépens de la relation entre les femmes et les soignants? Humanitaire: Enjeux, pratiques, débats. 2013;35:4–43.
54.
go back to reference Knox Clarke P, Darcy J. Insufficient evidence? The quality and use of evaluation in humanitarian action. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2014. Knox Clarke P, Darcy J. Insufficient evidence? The quality and use of evaluation in humanitarian action. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2014.
56.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1978. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1978.
57.
go back to reference Buchanan-Smith M, Cosgrave J. Evaluation of humanitarian action: Pilot guide. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2013. Buchanan-Smith M, Cosgrave J. Evaluation of humanitarian action: Pilot guide. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2013.
58.
go back to reference Cousins JB. Organizational consequences of participatory evaluation: School district case study. In: Leithwood K, Louis KS, editors. Organizational learning in schools. New York: Taylor & Francis; 1998. p. 127–48. Cousins JB. Organizational consequences of participatory evaluation: School district case study. In: Leithwood K, Louis KS, editors. Organizational learning in schools. New York: Taylor & Francis; 1998. p. 127–48.
59.
go back to reference Cousins JB. Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In: Kellaghan T, Stufflebeam DL, Wingate LA, editors. International handbook of educational evaluation: Part two: Practice. Boston: Kluwer; 2003. p. 245–66.CrossRef Cousins JB. Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In: Kellaghan T, Stufflebeam DL, Wingate LA, editors. International handbook of educational evaluation: Part two: Practice. Boston: Kluwer; 2003. p. 245–66.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Cousins JB, Earl LM. The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Analysis. 1992;14(4):397–418.CrossRef Cousins JB, Earl LM. The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Analysis. 1992;14(4):397–418.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference King JA. Developing evaluation capacity through process use. N Dir Eval. 2007;2007(116):45–59.CrossRef King JA. Developing evaluation capacity through process use. N Dir Eval. 2007;2007(116):45–59.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Future trends in evaluation. In: Segone M, editor. From policies to results: Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems. Paris: UNICEF and IPEN; 2008. p. 44–56. Patton MQ. Future trends in evaluation. In: Segone M, editor. From policies to results: Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems. Paris: UNICEF and IPEN; 2008. p. 44–56.
63.
go back to reference Højlund S. Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation. 2014;20(1):26–43.CrossRef Højlund S. Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation. 2014;20(1):26–43.CrossRef
64.
65.
go back to reference Henry G. Beyond use: understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. Am J Eval. 2003;24(3):293–314. Henry G. Beyond use: understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. Am J Eval. 2003;24(3):293–314.
66.
go back to reference Kirkhart KE. Reconceptualizing evaluation use: an integrated theory of influence. N Dir Eval. 2000;88:5–23.CrossRef Kirkhart KE. Reconceptualizing evaluation use: an integrated theory of influence. N Dir Eval. 2000;88:5–23.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference Mark MM. Toward better research on—and thinking about—evaluation influence, especially in multisite evaluations. N Dir Eval. 2011;2011(129):107–19.CrossRef Mark MM. Toward better research on—and thinking about—evaluation influence, especially in multisite evaluations. N Dir Eval. 2011;2011(129):107–19.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Clarke P, Ramalingam B. Organisational change in the humanitarian sector. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2008. Clarke P, Ramalingam B. Organisational change in the humanitarian sector. London: ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute; 2008.
69.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.
70.
go back to reference Patton MQ, LaBossière F. évaluation axée sur l'utilisation. In: Ridde V, Dagenais C, editors. Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal; 2009. Patton MQ, LaBossière F. évaluation axée sur l'utilisation. In: Ridde V, Dagenais C, editors. Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal; 2009.
72.
go back to reference Le Ministère du Burkina Faso. Compte-rendu du Conseil des ministres du mercredi 2 mars 2016. Portail officiel du gouvernement du Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou: Le Ministre de la Communication et des Relations avec le Parlement; 2016. Le Ministère du Burkina Faso. Compte-rendu du Conseil des ministres du mercredi 2 mars 2016. Portail officiel du gouvernement du Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou: Le Ministre de la Communication et des Relations avec le Parlement; 2016.
Metadata
Title
A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso
Authors
Léna D’Ostie-Racine
Christian Dagenais
Valéry Ridde
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0109-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue