| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
UTAGAWA Takuo Hokkaido University of Education, Dept. of Education, Professor (30142764)
KAKUTA Ieko Asia University, Dept. of International Relations, Professor (20296396)
SHIRAKAWA Chihiro National Museum of Ethnology, Dept. of Advanced Studies in Anthropology Science, Associate Professor (60319994)
SEKINE Hisao The University of Tsukuba, Grad. School of Humanities and Social Scieneces, Associate Professor (60283462)
HASHIMOTO Kazuya Kyoto Bunkyo University, Dept. of Cultural Anthropology, Professor (90237933)
|
|---|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥14,480,000 (Direct Cost: ¥13,400,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,080,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥4,680,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,080,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥4,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥4,200,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥5,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,600,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This is a study of development anthropology, which aims to improve the quality of development projects. The objectives of the study are 1) to make a consensus about the anthropological perspectives for development project evaluation among investigators in our team who are all specialized in the study of development question, 2) to criticize constructively the conventional evaluation methodology for development projects, and to propose ideas for alternatives.
1) The anthropological perspectives useful for the evaluation of development projects include a) holistic thinking, i.e., to gain insights by applying a variety of theories and methodologies, b) fieldwork method, i.e., to share information between researchers and informants based on mutual confidence, c) research topic : the process of leadership formation among development beneficiaries, d) research topic 2 : the role of intermediaries between donor organization and beneficiaries, e) to understand the information needs of donor organization.
2) Our critical assessment of PCM method, a major evaluation method for development projects, and logical framework, a key tool for PCM, reveals that the PCM and logical framework have 1) inadequate explanatory potential for the relationship between incidents in and outside of a project, and 2) poor qualitative an assessment on the target group of a project. The suggestions and alternatives of project evaluation are provided by each of our investigators. They include a) a method for producing practical lessons in rural development projects, b) a criticism against the secondary evaluation method, i.e., the evaluation of evaluation reports, currently used by Japan International Cooperation Agency, c) an evaluation method for water users associations, d) suggestions for improving project evaluation reports, e) the proposition of culturally sensitive evaluation criterion, and f) the lessons from the memories of project beneficiaries.
|
