5. Evaluating counter-disinformation programmes

Summary of the presentations and discussions on "Evaluating counter-disinformation programs" from the June 2021 GFMD IMPACT donor-practitioner-academic meeting on disinformation.

Theories of change: correlation and causation

The issues around methodological and project and research design questions and how media development projects can measure their effectiveness within theories of change related to governance objectives were discussed in the GFMD IMPACT March event on Theories of change and Impact measurement:

Theories of change & impact measurement (March '21)

Draft working paper

A draft working paper was created for the purposes of discussion at the June 2021 GFMD IMPACT donor-practitioner-academic meeting on disinformation.

Please leave your comments and suggestions directly in the draft document.

Susan Abbott, consultant, co-chair of the Media Sector Development Working Group of The International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)

Katerina Tsetsura, Ph.D., Gaylord Family Professor of Strategic Communication, University of Oklahoma, Independent Consultant, Research, Measurement, Monitoring, and Evaluation

The following is a summary of the presentation of the draft working paper.

5 key challenges to measuring and evaluating countering disinformation programmes

1. Disinformation is a big, all-encompassing concept.

  • Which disinformation is it that we are seeking to counter?

  • What has changed as a result of the programs being implemented?

  • What is a unit of analysis?

  • What or who is supposed to change?

  • Is it an individual person or an institution?

  • What must happen at the societal level?

  • The “disinformation” that’s meant to be countered is often lost in the course of programme implementation.

2. What is a programme’s overall theory of change?

A simple example:

If we (1) support better journalism and reporting on disinformation, (2) improve newsroom and social media production processes including fact checking and moderation, and (3) train audiences to be literate in assessing media, then we can give the public better tools to interpret and reject disinformation.

In turn, these efforts will help to reduce the impact of disinformation (e.g., on particular topics which were the programme’s focus) and to strengthen disinformation resilience among individuals and communities, a characteristic vital to any democracy.

For more information and recommendations on theories of change see the report from the previous meeting:

Theories of change & impact measurement (March '21)

3. Media transparency

All the hidden influences that happen in the media can lead to distrust and make it hard to get honest feedback.

4. Trust and truth are hard to measure

5. Making space for non-Western approaches

What is the extent of our knowledge about countering disinformation in non-western societies?

Who has the right to identify what counts as disinformation and what are the “appropriate ways” to counter disinformation efforts?

Recommendations

1. Build a community of practice around countering disinformation

What? Create a shared vision of what constitutes change.

2. Carry out an impact evaluation/study

How? It should be external and independent. Data collected can inform baseline understandings for future work in this space.

3. Countering disinformation diagnostic tool for program design

How? Leverage collective wisdom and understanding that can be used as a construct for carrying out assessments used to develop and design countering disinformation programmes: pressure points, contextual factors, key areas of concern.

Last updated

Was this helpful?