Meeting agenda
AGENDA - Theories of change and impact measurement - 15 March 2021. A donor-practitioner-academic learning and information sharing meeting.

Co-organised by Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA).

AGENDA

Date: 15th March 2021
Time: 15:00-17:00 CET / 09:00-11:00 ET

Aim

To provide media development donors and practitioners with insights and knowledge on how to design and measure high-impact journalism support and media development interventions.

Rules

These meetings take place using the Chatham House rule:
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
The meeting will be recorded for the purposes of record-keeping and to enable accurate reporting. The video will never be shared or published.
These meetings are not for the solicitation of funding.

WELCOME (15:00-15:15 )

CASE STUDIES (15:15-16:00)

Case study 1: The use of theories of change in media and governance programmes (15:15-15:30)

Speakers:
Intro_ToCStudy_GFMD_15032021_v2.pdf
731KB
PDF
Christoph Surk's presentation
For more background visit:

Case study 2: PRIMED - Protecting Independent Media for Effective Development (15:30- 15:45)

Developing learning questions and knowledge sharing mechanisms for a consortium of partners and multiple country teams.
Speakers:
References and recommended reading:

Case study 3: Measuring the impact of investigative reporting (15:45-16:00)

Speakers:
References and recommended reading:
For more background see:

BREAKOUT GROUPS 16:00-16:30

Breakout group 1: The use of theories of change in media and governance programmes

Co-chairs:

Rapporteur: Nick Benequista, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Discussion questions for breakout group 1:

What have international media assistance organisations and donors learnt from using "theories of change" and "result chains" to enhance the projects design, monitoring and evaluation?
  • When are theories of change appropriate?
  • When should donors look to use other frameworks?
How can media support groups create "theories of change" when there is a lack of evidence?
In what circumstances should theories of change be built on assumptions?
How can we create more evidence-based exercises using "theories of change" and "result chains" as a collaboration between academia and practitioners?
  • What are the biggest challenges in the application of these models in practice?
  • Should theories of change applied to media assistance be standardised? If so, what is the right process?
For a summary of the case study and highlights from the breakout group discussion see:

Breakout group 2: PRIMED - Protecting Independent Media for Effective Development

Co-chairs:

Rapporteur: Dennis Reineck, DW Akademie

Discussion questions breakout group 2 :

What research and data are being produced that could provide evidence to support answering PRIMED's learning questions?
  • Where are the gaps and how could they be filled?
How can PRIMED contribute to learning across the whole sector (i.e. those outside the PRIMED consortium such as other media development actors and donors as well as, researchers and academics)?
  • What research and data needs to be produced from an evidence and learning perspective?
  • What formats should it be in and how should it be shared?
For a summary of the case study and highlights from the breakout group discussion see:

Breakout group 3: Measuring the impact of investigative reporting

Co-chairs:

Rapporteur: Gabriela Manuli, GIJN

Discussion questions for breakout group 3:

How can we more effectively measure the impact of investigative journalism - on audiences and on society (especially closed societies) - at a programmatic level as well as at the macro level?
What role can academia and collaborative partnerships play in helping investigative journalism (and those that support it) understand the societal impact of their work?
How can we fill the gaps in research specifically about the impact of investigative journalism (rather than other kinds of journalism)?
For a summary of the case study and highlights from the breakout group discussion see:

REPORTING FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS (16:30-16:55)

  • Rapporteurs present the key takeaways from the breakout groups.
Full write-ups of the discussions in the breakout group will be shared with all participants after the meeting.

CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS (16:55-17:00)

  • Mira Milosevic, GFMD

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

A short survey will be sent to all participants immediately after the meeting to help understand how best to follow-up on the ideas discussed.
Last modified 7mo ago