Research Report Summary and Evaluation of the USAID Program
SUMMARY
• How would you describe the research method, inductive or deductive, ideographic or nomothetic, qualitative or quantitative, paradigm with which the topic is framed?
• What ethical issues confront this research product?
• What political issues confront this research product?
• What pragmatic issues confront this research product?
• What are the variables and how do they relate to the concepts?
• What is the underlying theory or theories that are related to understanding this work of research?
• What are the research hypotheses either explicit or implicit, and how are they formulated in this study?
• How are the observations gathered, and what is the population to which results can be extrapolated?
• What is the sampling frame and sampling logic?
• What is the logic of operationalizing in variables the underlying concepts?
• Are any indexes or scales used? If so describe the nature and logic behind these measures.
• What use is made of statistics in the research?
• What best categorizes the approach (or approaches) used to gather evidence for this study, case study, focus group, panel data, cross-section data, other?
• Is there a clear treatment and control strategy? If so, how was it done? If not, why was it not done?
EVALUATION
• Do you think the research methods were appropriate for the question the research was designed to answer?
• What is your evaluation of whether the study satisfactorily addressed the ethical, political, and pragmatic challenges it faced?
• Did the variables selected and presented adequately correspond to the concepts the research was designed to investigate?
• Were the research hypotheses formulated in a clear way, and were they falsifiable?
• Was the sampling frame satisfactory, and are you convinced the results are possible to extrapolate to a larger population?
• Were the constructed variables, indexes, scales done in a convincing manner?
• Was the statistical treatment satisfactory?
• Does the nature of the data gathering approach match the research question?
• Was the treatment and control strategy adequate or if not present, is that defensible?
• If your next job was the assignment given to the authors of the research product, would you use the same approach used in the study in question? If so, why? If not, what would you do differently?
Research Report Summary and Evaluation
Your Name
Department of ABC, University – Whitewater
ABC 101: Course Name
Professor (or Dr.) Firstname Lastname
Date
Research Report Summary and Evaluation
In the early 2000s, the United States, through USAID, sought to promote Serbia's economy and promote participatory democracy. The decision came after prolonged war, international isolation, and internal economic hardship. Central to this effort were three programs: Community Revitalization Through Democratic Action Program (CRDA), Serbia Local Government Reform Program (SLGRP), and Serbian Enterprise Development Project (SEDP). Eight years later, The Mitchell Group (2008) prepared a report on the program's impact to ascertain the extent to which objectives were met. Based on the report submitted to USAID, the current paper summarises and evaluates the report's core aspects.
Report Summary
A mixed approach consisting of qualitative and quantitative data collection underpinned the research that informed the report. On the one hand, face-to-face interviews were necessary to establish the impact of programs from the perspective of Serbian citizens and local government officials. Across four weeks, the research team visited 39 municipalities in the Central, West, North, South, and Southeast regions of the country over a month's period, where over 175 interviews involving 500 individuals took place. Local government officials interviewed include mayors, heads of strategic planning departments, and finance directors. Open-ended interviews were necessary to provide in-depth information on the impact of the three programs. The resulting findings were qualitative, involving experience, opinions, and insights from interviewees. On the other hand, the qualitative findings were supplemented by quantitative data collected through a 16-part questionnaire.
According to the researchers, the relationship between communities and the project existed in the context of America Cares. In other words, findings on how the Serbian public perceived the United States were also part of the expected outcomes. From this point of view, key political issues confronting the research emerged. Since the programs came after a prolonged war in which public perception of the United States might have varied, it was a critical political issue since not everyone perceived America as an ally in the country's political, social, and economic strife. This point of view also informed the critical ethical issue in which people who might have benefited from the program still held negative perceptions against America. For example, people holding political positions, such as mayors, had their jurisdictions benefit from the program while, at the same time, because of their political affiliations, might not have been positively receptive to the American programs. These political and ethical issues might have impacted responses during interviews.
The USAID's programs had two core aims: spur economic growth and promote participatory democracy. In the former, target issues include the development of SMEs, empowering Serbians to take up entrepreneurial roles, and increase in employment opportunities. In the latter, the critical areas targeted included the extent to which citizens were involved in making governance decisions in the country. Therefore, the key variables that informed the report's findings were the growth of SMEs, the emergence of entrepreneurs, the increase (or decrease) in employment opportunities, and the direct role of citizens in governance decisions. In terms of economic growth, for instance, additional dependent variables included change in the country's GDP, additional income generated, and increased agricultural product sales.
While not explicitly stated, the report is underpinned by theories of democracy. Part of the USAID programs' core goals was promoting participatory democracy by Serbian citizens. Aside from freedom of assembly, property rights, association, and free market, democratic principles also include self-determination by citizens through the majority's rule. Theories of democracy hold that when citizens can enjoy an array of freedoms, they are freed to participate optimally in the economic development and growth of their jurisdiction. Therefore, the second goal of the USAID programs (economic growth) was directly related to the range of freedoms Serbians enjoy. Therefore, the report was developed from the point of view of democracy theories which connect people's participation in governance and political decisions with the economic development of a jurisdiction.
Within the report, hypotheses were not explicitly stated. However, implicit deductions showed that the USAID programs were expected to increase citizens' participation in the country's democracy and economic growth. This hypothesis comes from the fact that the programs were intended to help Serbia recover from a prolonged period of war, economic hardship, and social strife. In other words, the programs were intended to make life better (instead of worsening it) from the point of view of ordinary Serbians. The hypothesis was formulated through the choice of observable variables like an increase in employment opportunities, growth of the country's GDP, changes in sales of agricultural products, and the extent to which citizens participated in political and governance decisions from the local government level compared to the preceding war period. By measuring outcomes along these variables, the hypothesis was confirmed; the three USAID programs helped spur Serbia's economic growth and promoted citizens' participation in local governance decisions.
Open-ended interviews, questionnaires, site visits, and documentation reviews are some of the critical ways researchers gathered observations. Site visits provided first-hand experience on the programs' impact, while documentation reviews provided a historical and current overview of implementation, evaluation, and officially-recognized program outcomes. Combined, these approaches provide different points of view on the impact of USAID programs where researcher observations intermarried with the citizenry and officials' experience with the programs. Additionally, these observations were conducted in selected (39 municipalities) jurisdictions where programs were implemented. This implies that purposive sampling informed the selection of participants in the study. For example, mayors were interviewed because they had an oversight role in program implementations. Within ...