BRINGING PRACTITIONERS INTO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND USE: EXPERIENCES IN WASHINGTON AND UGANDA

Since 2000, international development institutions in the U.S. and U.K. have become more focused on evidence of effectiveness. Donors have embraced the narrative promoted by a group of elite development economists that randomized control trials (RCTs) produce the most rigorous evidence of “what works” and have funded thousands of experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Three articles ask what these new studies and narratives about research mean for two groups of practitioners—one in Washington, DC, and one in Kampala, Uganda. Do they find these studies or other types of research relevant, credible and useful to their work designing and managing programs? How do they perceive the narrative that RCTs constitute the most important type of development research? Practitioners interviewed see several potential uses of research in their work, but they face numerous challenges pursuing those uses. They question the recent emphasis on RCTs and see research agendas driven by northern academics and donors as unresponsive to their most pressing needs and questions. These findings suggest that research could be more useful to practitioners if research agendas were broader and agenda-setting were more democratic.