Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes

J Knook, V Eory, M Brander, D Moran

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design. Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20%, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15% of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries. Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)309 - 325
Number of pages17
JournalThe Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Volume24
Issue number4
Early online date26 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 26 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

farmer
evaluation
agricultural sector
research planning
inclusion
cause
methodology
trend

Bibliographical note

1030715

Keywords

  • Impact evaluation
  • Voluntary uptake
  • Extension programme
  • Agriculture
  • Ex post evaluation
  • Discussion groups

Cite this

Knook, J ; Eory, V ; Brander, M ; Moran, D. / Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes. In: The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2018 ; Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 309 - 325.
@article{959cce29aa5a44dfb0c41fff7604a21f,
title = "Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes",
abstract = "Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design. Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20{\%}, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15{\%} of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries. Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.",
keywords = "Impact evaluation, Voluntary uptake, Extension programme, Agriculture, Ex post evaluation, Discussion groups",
author = "J Knook and V Eory and M Brander and D Moran",
note = "1030715",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "309 -- 325",
journal = "Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension",
issn = "1389-224X",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes. / Knook, J; Eory, V; Brander, M; Moran, D.

In: The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, Vol. 24, No. 4, 26.04.2018, p. 309 - 325.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes

AU - Knook, J

AU - Eory, V

AU - Brander, M

AU - Moran, D

N1 - 1030715

PY - 2018/4/26

Y1 - 2018/4/26

N2 - Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design. Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20%, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15% of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries. Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.

AB - Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design. Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20%, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15% of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries. Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.

KW - Impact evaluation

KW - Voluntary uptake

KW - Extension programme

KW - Agriculture

KW - Ex post evaluation

KW - Discussion groups

U2 - 10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717

DO - 10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717

M3 - Review article

VL - 24

SP - 309

EP - 325

JO - Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

JF - Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

SN - 1389-224X

IS - 4

ER -