P ower of evidence on multidimensional poverty and poverty dynamics

1. Power of evidence on multidimensional poverty and poverty dynamics Panel aim • Interplay between evidence and policy • Relative palatability of different types of evidence • Novel conceptual and methodological approaches addressing questions such as: • How has the new aid architecture shaped notions of rigour and accountability? • Does evidence-based policy making represents a new form of governmentality? • How can researchers work ethically in contexts of poverty and inequality?

2. Power of evidence on multidimensional poverty and poverty dynamics Four papers taking a new approach – Evaluation - Copestake Measurement – Seth, Utente Research practice – Tiwari and Saqqa-Pickering

3. Copestake • Increasing trend towards confirmatory (impact evaluation) rather than exploratory (impact research) • Rigour and credibility in impact evaluation, e.g. • Addressing pro-project bias • theories of change • self-reported attribution • Joint evaluation • ‘hard wired’ • Potential of realist evaluation – understanding range of effects vs. ATET

4. Seth • Importance of and challenges associated with capturing incidence, intensity and inequality • How measures construct problems and solutions • Sensitivity of measurement to different assumptions • Need for measures that are intuitive (‘counting approach’) and transparent

5. Utente • Measuring a novel concept and capturing differential responses to intervention • Embedding energy poverty within global processes such as decentralisation • Understanding capacity-related barriers to using evidence within energy planning

6. Tiwari and Saqqa-Pickering • Comparing data and sharing practice across the Global North and South • Moving from access through ‘gate keepers’ to becoming a ‘key master’ (but gatekeepers as co-researchers?) • ‘Reluctance framework’ embedded in social context • History of reluctance provides new data • How do researchers work in unequal and unjust societies?

7. Opening questions • Generating credible and useable evidence • Broadening our view of impact, e.g. differentiation, not project-related • Improving or de-centring measures – what can they tell us and at what cost? • Researching in an unequal world