Integrity Watch Afghanistan  Research Methods Handbook

The handbook is designed as a practical reference for researchers in the field, covering the how, what, and when of policy-oriented research. It is neither comprehensive in scope nor does it dwell on the theories underpinning its recommendations.

References with hyperlinks are included for detailed reading and follow up.

The handbook guides the reader through three steps:

1. Research, needs analysis, and evaluation design;
2. Implementation of research and evaluation methodologies; and
3.  Research and evaluation presentation.

Part 1 explains three different designs: research needs analysis, and evaluation design. The research design section discusses how to establish  research objectives and a  research proposal. These objectives are then tied to a suitable conceptual framework, and these concepts are then operationalized into observable or measurable variables. Here there is a discussion of internal validity, variable-based research designs, and their use cases. The needs analysis section includes its purpose and basic steps.

Finally, the evaluation design provides ideas on  pre-assessment analyses, questions, and approaches for answering result-based as well as impact evaluations. A section on peace and conflict impact analysis is included as a special kind of evaluation tool.  That is followed by an  overview of general ethical considerations and research standards to be applied to the study.

Part 2 focuses on the implementation of research and evaluation methodologies. The focus is on three data collection methods: sampling, conducting surveys, and focus groups. Practical considerations including data collection and managing evaluations are also discussed.

Part 3 outlines research presentation concepts with a focus on policy-oriented report writing. This section identifies different types of policy briefs with their use-cases, a section-by-section guide on how to write a policy paper, guidelines on citations and referencing using the Chicago Manual of Style 17áµ—Ê° edition Notes-Bibliography (NB) system, and innovative tools to support the research and report-writing process.

Beyond an initial reading of Part 1 on research design, this handbook is meant to be a reference and does not need to be read in chronological order. Rather, it should be consulted as and when needed throughout the course of a research project.

The post Integrity Watch Afghanistan  Research Methods Handbook appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

2020 CIFP Fragility Report

Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCAS) remain more relevant than ever. After a brief period of declining fragility at the turn of the century, FCAS have become more prominent as their precarious situation worsens in a COVID 19 world. In the last decade or so, we have seen an increase in armed conflicts and violence around the world. The COVID 19 crisis has further exacerbated FCAS performance in several important ways by further weakening their capacity for response and prevention and by delinking their economies from global financial, trade and aid flows.

In our latest ranking presented in this report, Chad tops the list of FCAS. Sudan, Somalia, the Central African Republic and South Sudan make up the top five. Ranks five to ten are occupied, in order, by Yemen, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, West Bank and Gaza, and Eritrea. A year-over-year comparison with previous rankings from the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) project shows that Somalia, Chad, the Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Sudan and South Sudan rank consistently among the top poor performers and usually almost always within the top five for several years. These are countries that we would typically characterize as being trapped in fragility.

The majority of the top 20 most fragile states are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, a finding that is consistent with our historical data (). The rest are in the Middle East and North Africa, namely Syria, Yemen and the West Bank and Gaza, and in Central and South Asia, namely Afghanistan and Pakistan. These regional distributions find concordance in our composite analysis of fragility using the Authority, Legitimacy and Capacity (ALC) cluster scores. The ALC and regional distribution assessments enable policy makers to evaluate the different characteristics of stateness, namely in terms of identifying the sources and extent of both weaknesses and strengths; it also assists policymakers in their decisions on where and how to engage by providing additional nuance to the question of fragility. Read it here:

2020 CIFP Fragility Report

The post Fragile and Conflict-Affected States in the Age of COVID 19: A 2020 Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Report appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

Backsliding and Reversal: The J Curve Revisited

The post Backsliding and Reversal: The J Curve Revisited appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

The Democracy and Governance Processes Project aims to contribute to a better understanding of democratic processes in a selected number of countries, thereby providing support to decision-makers engaged in Canadian foreign policy and development. In this way, the project aims to support informed, evidence-based decision making for Canadian foreign policy and development assistance related to democratization.

CIFP Governance Project Summary – June 2007

The post CIFP Governance Project Summary – June 2007 appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

CIFP’s goals consist of providing decision-support tools for desk officers, providing strategic and operational guidance for policy makers, integrating problem-centered analysis into whole-of-government policy-making; and to develop a network of research and policy capabilities across Canada.

Monitoring Democratic and Governance Processes: An Evidence-Based Approach

The post Monitoring Democratic and Governance Processes: An Evidence-Based Approach appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

Previous Research Using CIFP Conflict indicators: 1. SIDS have very specific and individual vulnerabilities related to their economic conditions, governance, and international linkages. Few have all of the problems in extreme in comparison to larger countries. This suggests that SIDS could benefit from very specific and targeted policies where the problems are very specific and not compounded by other risk factors. 2. The evidence suggests that there are significant differences in the ways the methodologies evaluate both the risks faced by SIDS and the political and economic structures designed to mitigate those risks. For instance, scores for the 10 SIDS states included in both Briguglio and Galea’s economic vulnerability index and the CIFP risk index correlate at -0.54. 3. Using a modified version of the CIFP risk index that includes only issue indicators related to ‘inherent’ structural vulnerability – demographic stress, environmental stress, population heterogeneity, and human development – that correlation score rises to -0.77.

Governance and Resilience

The post Governance and Resilience appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

On June 11 and 12, 2009, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened an experts’ workshop as part of an ongoing project called Understanding Local Context. The project aims to improve understanding of how international actors grapple with local context and dynamics in the countries where they work. It asks two basic questions: 1. What tools or other means do international actors use to assess and understand the local context in the countries where they work? 2. How do the information and analysis produced by these instruments influence international actors’ decisions, policies, and programs?

IPI MEETNOTE-WORKSHOP SUMMARY

The post IPI MEETNOTE-WORKSHOP SUMMARY appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).

undp users guide online version

The post UNDP users guide – online version appeared first on Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP).