Results – represent more than quantitative data
- IndicatorMeasure Codelist
Type of Change
- Add code to codelist
- Change to Schema
• Currently, only quantitative indicators (units or percentages) may be represented using the IATI standard.
• Why is this a problem?: While some quantitative indicators can provide direct meaning (for example: percentage of patients that responded positively to drug X) they cannot reflect the qualitative context that is often necessary to articulate the meaning behind the values.
There are many interventions in international development where quantitative measures are not relevant or meaningful, for example in relation to policy-influencing and advocacy work, and in some forms of capacity-development and empowerment interventions. These are common areas of work for civil society organisations.
If there is not scope to report such results, CSOs will try to ‘play the game’ either by doing more of the measurable work and less of the hard-to-measure work, even if the latter is vital, or as we are already seeing, by converting qualitative results into quantitative results. Conversion of results into a quantitative format can be time-consuming and expensive, provides little or no value to the initiative, risks poor quality and redundant data, and provides little value for money.
- Add a new code to the Indicator Measure codelist for Indicator attribute @measure
Code = qualitative
Description = This indicator is qualitative
(see http://iatistandard.org/202/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/result/indicator/ and http://iatistandard.org/202/codelists/IndicatorMeasure/ for relevant sections of the standard)
- In order to avoid having to use a unit or a percentage, make the @value attribute for indicator/baseline, and period/target and period/actual elements optional
(http://iatistandard.org/202/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/result/indicator/period/target/ for example relevant section of the standard)
This will have the additional advantage of avoiding having to record ‘no baseline available’ as a zero (0) value – no value and zero value are very different concepts in monitoring and evaluation and having to record a zero value may cause issues with data quality.
Workshopped at the TAG 2017 and mentioned at the end of the Standards day as part of the results section. Although there was very little time to discuss the proposal, no criticism of the proposal was offered. Proposal has been on IATI Discuss since March 2017.
• This topic is discussed here: Results: represent more than quantitative data
• This topic addresses Principle 1 from a consultation driven by Monitoring and Evaluation experts from UK CSOs Jan – Mar 2017 – see Results: discussion space and TAG 2016/17 path. Technical suggestions were devised by technology specialists at the Nethope Athens conference March 2017. In all around 30 M&E and technical specialists were involved in this consultation and it builds on a previous consultation by Bond 2015-16 (https://www.bond.org.uk/resources/publishing-results-to-iati - also on discuss.iatistandard : Sharing Results using IATI data standard: will it improve learning and accountability? ).