hlanthorn

have evidence, will… um, erm (6 of 6, enforcing accountability in decision-making)

this is a joint post with suvojit, continuing from 5 of 6 in the series. it is also cross-posted here. a recent episode reminded us of why we began this series of posts, of which is this is the last. we recently saw our guiding scenario for this series play out: a donor wasContinueContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm (6 of 6, enforcing accountability in decision-making)”

have evidence, will… um, erm (5 of 6, revisibility)

this is part of a series of joint posts with suvojit. it is also cross-posted at people, spaces, deliberation. throughout this series of posts (1, 2, 3, 4), we have considered two main issues. first, how can evidence and evaluation be shaped to be made more useful – that is, directly useable – in guidingContinueContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm (5 of 6, revisibility)”

Allowing ‘revisibility’ in decisionmaking

Originally posted on Suvojit Chattopadhyay:
This is a joint post with Heather – fifth in our series on decisionmaking *** Throughout this series of posts (1, 2, 3, 4), we have considered two main issues. First, how can evidence and evaluation be shaped to be made more useful – that is, directly useable – in guiding decision-makers to…

i’m not sure that means what you think it means (gold standard)

some thoughts, from peter byass, here, for the next time you want to refer to a technique as the ‘gold standard’ and what may be behind such a guarantee: The verbal autopsy literature has extensively used and abused the concept of “gold standards” for validating cause of death determination. Metallurgists would say that 100% pureContinueContinue reading “i’m not sure that means what you think it means (gold standard)”

have evidence, will… um, erm? (4 of 6, going public)

this is a joint post with suvojit. it is also posted on people, spaces, deliberation. in our last post, we discussed how establishing “relevant reasons” for decision-making ex ante may enhance the legitimacy and fairness of deliberations on resource allocation. we also highlight that setting relevant decision-making criteria can inform evaluation design by highlighting whatContinueContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm? (4 of 6, going public)”

further thoughts on phase-in/pipeline designs for causal inference

not long back, i put down my thoughts (here) about pipeline or phase-in designs. my basic premise is that while they may allow for causal inference, it is not clear that they are usually designed to allow generated evidence to be used where it is most relevant — to that program itself. that seems badContinueContinue reading “further thoughts on phase-in/pipeline designs for causal inference”

have evidence, will… um, erm? (3 of 6, relevent reasons)

this is a joint post with suvojit. it is also posted on people, spaces, deliberation. . in our last post, we wrote about factors – evidence and otherwise – influencing decision-making about development programmes. to do so, we have considered the premise of an agency deciding whether to continue or scale a given program afterContinueContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm? (3 of 6, relevent reasons)”

west african pirates

i’ve been slow on pirate news. sometimes my google alert for ‘pirate’ brings me good things; most of the time it is about sports teams. in any case, something good came in today. a lieutenant commander in the french navy noted that west africa and the gulf of guinea is a good place to beContinueContinue reading “west african pirates”

losing the “different worlds” talk

this post is an elaboration of my tweet on the nytimes’ op-ed, “the end of the developing world”, by Dayo Olopade. the essay is good and important. imbibe it. here’s a sip: it’s tough to pick a satisfying replacement. talk of first, second and third worlds is passé, and it’s hard to bear the DickensianContinueContinue reading “losing the “different worlds” talk”

have evidence, will… um, erm (2 of 2)

this is the second in a series of posts with suvojit (and cross-posted here), initially planned as a series of two but growing to six… reminder: the scenario in our last post, we set up a scenario that we* have both seen several times: a donor or large implementing agency (our focus, though we think our arguments applyContinueContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm (2 of 2)”