IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject todisclaimercopyright notice
  EUROPA > European Commission > EuropeAid > Evaluation > Methods > How
Last updated: 09/11/2005

Methodological bases
Evaluation process (how?)
Methodological design


Developing tools: an example


• Evaluation Guidelines
• Methodological bases
• Evaluation tools
• Examples
• Glossary
• Sitemap

• What
• When
• Why
• Who
• How

• Overview
• Strategy
• Questions
• References
• Design
• Data collection
• Analysis
• Judgment
• Quality

• Overview
• Design tables
• Overall design
• Developing tools
• Feasibility

Evaluation tool: "Interviews Education"
Name of
Interviews with stakeholders at national level in the area of education
Questions and sub-questions addressed Question E - Education
  • Has the design of EC support to primary education included a commitment to monitor the quality of educational services supplied to disadvantaged groups?
  • Was such monitoring actually undertaken?
  • Were the monitoring data subject to periodic discussion among development partners?
  • Have partners taken action as a follow up of such discussions?
  • Were such actions designed with a view to providing disadvantaged groups with high quality primary education?
  • Have other development partners pushed for monitoring the quality of educational services provided to disadvantaged groups?
  • Have non-state actors contributed to raising the issue of disadvantaged groups on the political agenda?
  • How far did other partners contribute to shaping the actions taken in favour of disadvantaged groups?
  • Is it acceptable for stakeholders to focus on the quality of teachers and premises as a way to judge discrimination in the access to primary schools?
Question D - Policy dialogue
  • What has the EC's input into policy dialogue been in the area of primary education? How does this input compare to that of other partners?
  • Did the EC input focus on the quality of educational services supplied to disadvantaged groups?
Question X - Cross-cutting issues
  • To what extent has the EC mainstreamed gender in its support to primary education? How does it compare to other partners in this respect?
  • Did the EC input focus on the quality of educational services supplied to disadvantaged groups?
Technical specifications Ten interviews at the Ministry of Education, Primary Education Inspectorate, and at the National Teachers Union and NGOs most active in the field of primary education.
Face-to-face 40-minute interviews; contacts made by the evaluation team; EC Delegation informed; guarantee of anonymous treatment; minutes not sent to informants; informants invited to the final discussion seminar.
Risk management Some informants may express themselves in a purposely biased way. Interviews should therefore focus on facts rather than opinions.
Mode of reporting (internal to evaluation team)
  • Identification fiches for all interviews, with full details
  • Minutes including profile of interviewee, verbatims (at least one per interview and per sub-question if relevant), document provided, contact provided, comment on potential biases
  • Overall synthesis per sub-question
Mode of reporting (in the final report)
  • List of interviewees (to be inserted in the overall list of interviewees appended to the report)
  • Anonymised verbatims (in a CDROM attached to the report)
  • Methodological description of the tool with comments on biases (about 50 lines to be inserted in the methodological appendix)
Responsibilities Local education expert: contacts with informants, draft interview guide, interviews and reports
Team leader: approval of interview guide
Quality Quality criteria: coverage of sub-questions with verbatims, self-assessment of biases
Quality control by team leader
Informants may be contacted again by another team member for verification. They should be informed of that.
Time schedule Start date, interviews between …and …
Date of reporting
Resources … person x days