Call for Expressions for Interest. for Principal Evaluator/Evaluation Team

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Call for Expressions for Interest. for Principal Evaluator/Evaluation Team"

Lynne Wells
5 years ago
Views:

Call for Expressions for Interest for Principal Evaluator/Evaluation Team Evaluation of the Global Research Project: Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries The Global Development

1 Call for Expressions for Interest for Principal Evaluator/Evaluation Team Evaluation of the Global Research Project: Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries The Global Development Network (GDN) invites expressions of interest from a Principal Evaluator/Evaluation Team for undertaking the evaluation of the Global Research Project Building Research Capacity in Least Development Countries. Expressions of Interest with complete proposals must be submitted to consultants@gdn.int by Wednesday, 30 December Details of the program and task are given below. 1. THE PROGRAM: The working assumption of the program is that low capacity research environments in least developed countries (LDCs) restricts the ability of researchers in these countries to undertake credible work and inform the policymaking community with timely, reliable analysis and evidence. The current situation however is the result of a vicious cycle of low- capacity, low- credibility and low- demand that has translated into a low- research capacity trap. The Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries program aims to build the institutional capabilities of research organizations based and working in to offer locally research capacity building opportunities. By supporting quality research training in LDCs, the program aims ultimately to support research efforts in economics and the social sciences that can contribute to policy debates at the local, national and regional level in LDCs. The program presents a number of innovative dimensions designed to fill an identified gap in research capacity building initiatives in LDCs: the high barrier to accessing research (and research training) opportunities internationally for researchers from LDCs, and the lack of quality research training opportunities locally. Accordingly: The program supports research institutions in LDCs to structure, expand, strengthen and institutionalize research capacity building opportunities available to researchers in LDCs, with an eye to institutional sustainability, (not simply the individual researchers). The program is demand- driven. Grantee institutions under this program implement projects that have been conceptualized and designed by them, 1

2 based on their contextual understanding of their research capacity building needs and aspirations, and the research and research training environment in which they operate. Each grantee developed its project based on specific research capacity building objectives that can be monitored, with a clear results- based orientation. GDN offers a hands- on partnership to each grantee, with flexible and continuous academic and project management support tailored for delivering quality results in low capacity environments. The toolkit employed by GDN included close interaction with the GDN Program Team and mentorship by a Scientific and Technical Advisor for each team, exposure visits and support for institutional outreach and networking, trainings in M&E and Project Management, support for institutional scale- up and for policy dialogue on higher education reform. The program supports the full integration of each project within the broader institutional development of each grantee institution, including by supporting outreach efforts nationally, regionally and internationally. The program connects researchers from LDCs with their peers and with mentors regionally and globally. The program focuses on the following key objectives: To develop and strengthen the analytical skills of individuals and institutions based in LDCs to help them undertake rigorous research To encourage networking and constructive engagement in a peer- learning environment To increase the ability of researchers and institutions in these countries to provide timely, reliable and policy options To create a network of institutions to share best practices and training materials with other institutions. For more details on the project, please visit: 2. PURPOSE: The objective of the evaluation is to track and critically evaluate the extent to which the program achieves its stated objectives, and to qualify what GDN did to make the grantees projects and the program as a whole succeed, if at all. The evaluation will assess the performance of the program against its intended goals and objectives, moving between the program and the project levels in the three countries of the grantees, and offering evidence and recommendations that will shape the future of the program. It is expected that the evaluation plan will clearly articulate an approach to linking the 2

3 review of the three grantee s projects (review of project design, achievements, and challenges) and the program level (review of support provided and challenges), including by embracing elements of both results- oriented and process- oriented evaluation methodologies, in order to generate key lessons for future strategic and programming decisions. 3. SCOPE: The evaluation will cover the three grantee teams located across Bhutan, Cambodia and Ethiopia. The key evaluation areas may (and are not limited to) cover the following aspects: 1. Assess the process of selection of the grantee teams in accordance with the program criteria; 2. Evaluate the process/approach employed by the grantees in implementing research capacity building projects, networking across stakeholders, sharing best practices with other institutions and linking their work to national policy debates on higher education; 3. Assess the relevance, usefulness, quality and outcomes of the capacity building initiatives developed by the three grantee institutions in relation to the demands of the local research and policy community, and to what extent they have met the needs and aspirations of their home institutions; 4. Gauge the quality, relevance and outcomes of the mentoring and peer review inputs provided by the mentors and GDN s Program Management Unit to the 3 grantee institutions; 5. Examine the extent to which the program impacted the grantee institutions visibility across national and regional stakeholders; and 6. Lessons Learnt: Provide GDN with lessons learnt and recommendations in terms of its approach to working with institutions, adapting tools and methodologies originally developed for individual researchers, and in implementing a demand- driven model for research capacity building. Explore GDN s value added in supporting the link between researchers, institutions and national higher education policy processes and functions. Specific monitoring and evaluation questions are and not limited to the following: Relevance: Does the program fill a real gap in the research and research training landscape of each of the LDCs of the program? Are the research capacity building projects supported relevant to the country institutions involved? Are the projects designed by grantees in line with the overall objectives and goals of the program? 3

4 Effectiveness: What specific research and research training gaps have the projects filled? Did the projects (and the program as a whole) support in identifiable ways the institutional mandate of the grantee institutions? What explains different outcomes across different grantees? Has the project design (including the monitoring and results frameworks) facilitated an internal learning feedback loop in the grantee institutions, beyond the implementing teams, that informed project implementation? Has GDNs support being instrumental in filling specific gaps in program design and management, and enhancing the capability of each team (and institution) to further its goals and vision in terms of project implementation? Has GDN s support, including mentors, contributed instrumentally to the quality and institutionalization of the research capacity building activities planned by each grantee? Efficiency: Were the project targets achieved on time? Were the targets realistic given the scale of operations? What trade- offs and adjustments, if any, have been made by the project in order to drive efficiency? What has been the learning in terms of project implementation for each grantee institution, and for GDN, including in terms of peer- review, mentorship and informal learning and sharing across teams? To what extent is the current staffing at an appropriate level to effectively and efficiently implement the project (quality and quantity), both at GDN and for grantees? Is the program tracking the outputs and outcomes of the projects in a systematic way? Impact: To what degree has each project achieved its stated goals, impacting on the capacity of researchers? To what degree has each project reached beyond its stated goals, with institutional spillover effect on the involved institutions in terms of research and research training initiatives? To what degree has GDN succeeded in supporting institutions to link their own strengthening to larger national policy debates on higher education reform? Sustainability: To what extent has each project become further institutionalized, including 4

5 through stronger management, wider outreach among potential trainees and increased visibility in their region and among national authorities and potential funders? How could have the program delivered greater value, specifically for the grantee institution (beyond the implementation team)? To what extent are the research capacity building initiatives likely to continue after the program closes? Has the project been able to equip the grantee institutions with new research toolboxes and institutional links that help them deliver quality research and research training to their research communities of reference and beyond? What lessons does this program and model offer in terms of sustainability of benefits and results? Where appropriate, the evaluation will also highlight unexpected results (positive or negative) and missed opportunities; and provide an analysis of how GDN has positioned itself to add value in a demand- led, tailored research capacity building approach in Least Developed Countries, present key findings, draw upon key lessons and provide a set of clear and forward- looking options leading to strategic and actionable recommendations for similar activities. 4. APPROACH AND METHODS: GDN seeks a robust evaluation approach appropriate for the innovative scope of the project, the amount of resources invested and an international audience of large donors. The team will have access to teams in grantee institutions, GDN and to program and project documentation, including monitoring paperwork. The evaluation plan will be developed in close consultation with the M&E Unit at GDN. Data sources will include, among others: Project proposal & overall project budget (including stated risks and assumptions) Call for Proposals Inception and interim workshop reports Project team proposals and budgets Progress reports Completed reports Communication products and outputs Workshop and events feedback Reports to donors Surveys/interviews with institutions, mentors, Steering Committee members The evaluator will also be asked to join the mid- term review workshop with all teams and mentors in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, on January 23 rd to 25 th PROFILE OF EVALUATOR/TEAM: GDN wishes to contract the services of either a 5

6 single Principal Evaluator or an evaluation team comprising of one Principal Evaluator and one or more team members. The Principal Evaluator will either be an evaluation expert or a senior academic with experience in the field of Evaluation and Research with (all are essential): demonstrated technical expertise in designing innovative, multi- country evaluation methodologies, and previous proven skills and experience in undertaking evaluations related to research and capacity building, preferably based on strong academic credentials; a strong background and experience in evaluating research programs aimed at institutional capacity- building in developing countries, and at influencing policy through research; excellent research and communication skills (in English) as evidenced by academic degrees (Ph.D. preferred) and a record of publications; high analytical skills with experience in case study methodology, possibly process- oriented evaluation, conducting interviews and surveys and interpreting data and information, assessing quality of reports generated by developing country researchers; immediate availability (the Principal Evaluator is expected to attend a project workshop in end of January 2016 for interviewing the research teams) Team members can complement or add to the expertise of the Principal Evaluator. 6. TIMELINE, REPORTING AND BUDGET Timeline: The evaluation timeframe is from 11 January 2016 to 30 November Travel: The consultancy will include travel to Vietnam to participate in a mid- term review workshop to be held on January 23 rd to 25 th, Reporting: The Evaluator will report to Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri, Senior Economist, GDN. Budget: The budget for the evaluation (including consultancy, local taxes, anticipated travel, overheads, etc.) is USD 16,000. Travel to the January 2016 workshop will be covered separately by GDN. 7. OUTPUTS: The following written outputs will be produced: An Inception Report to be produced prior to undertaking any data collection activities outlining the M&E for the project. The report will cover the evaluation questions to be answered, a detailed design matrix, and the methodology and work plan to answer the evaluation questions. It is expected that the methodology will be finalized in discussion with GDN. A Progress Report to be produced in April 2016, after an initial collection of data from grantee institutions, mentors and Steering Committee members. 6

7 A Summary Report to be produced containing findings and recommendations of the evaluation, before the profuction of the Final Report, for discussion with grantees and GDN. A Final Evaluation Report to be produced by 20 November The report must cover the following sections: I. Title Page II. III. IV. Table of Contents Abbreviations / acronyms page Executive summary (maximum 2 pages) V. A short introduction to the project VI. VII. VIII. IX. Evaluation methodology Findings in relation to outcomes Innovation and lessons learnt Conclusions and Summary of Recommendations 8. SUBMISSION OF THE EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST: The following information and documents must be provided as part of the proposal: a. Proposed Evaluation Methodology The applicant will provide a short overview of the proposed evaluation design and methodology, including a proposed timeline/schedule as well as a budget. b. Proposed Evaluation Team and their Qualifications Please include the following information in the proposal: Detailed CVs for Principal Evaluator and any other team member Contact details of three references Daily rate for your last 3 assignments Two examples of evaluation reports recently completed. If possible, at least one of the reports should be relevant, or similar to, the subject of this evaluation Confirmation of availability of the Principal Evaluator and/or the team members If the proposal if for a team, please include a paragraph detailing the structure and 7

8 share of responsibility of different team members. Complete proposals must be submitted by to with a copy to Ms. Savi Mull, (smull@gdn.int) by Wednesday, 30 December Please indicate EOI: Evaluation for Building Research Capacity in LDCs in the subject line of your message. There will be telephone and/or face- to- face interviews with the applicants of the shortlisted proposals. Only applicants of shortlisted proposals will be contacted. 8

Call for Proposals Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries

Call for Proposals Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries SECTION 1. OVERVIEW The research environment and quality of research undertaken and produced in Least Developed Countries (LDCs)