This study explores the use of Participatory Narrative Inquiry (PNI) in evaluating development interventions by contributing to the debate of using participatory narrative methods. Stories on personal experience are used to evaluate the project’s effects as with similar methods such as Most Significant Change and Sensemaking. To the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the early applications of PNI to the evaluation of international development programmes. The study discusses advantages and limitations, and provides a scholarly reflection based on an application of PNI in the evaluation of gender and women’s empowerment in Niger. The study concludes that PNI is a powerful alternative to existing qualitative and participatory narrative evaluation methods. Within mixed-method approaches, PNI allows for greater inclusion of project beneficiaries in the evaluation process, while helping to elaborate a thorough theory of change, understand the complexity of the context, identify and assess outcome pathways, and provide an evidence-based evaluation.
AbellP (2004) Narrative explanation: An alternative to variable centered explanation?Annual Review of Sociology30: 287–310.
2.
AbmaTAStakeRE (1999) Telling Tales: On Evaluation and Narrative (Advances in Program Evaluation). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
3.
AgarwalB (1997) ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics3(1): 1–51.
4.
AromaaEErikssonPMillsJH, et al. (2019) Critical sensemaking: Challenges and promises. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management14(3): 356–76.
5.
BakhacheNMichaelSRoupetzS, et al. (2017) Implementation of a SenseMaker® research project among Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Global Health Action10(1): 1362792.
6.
BeardonHSinghJMc CauslandR, et al. (2011) Telling stories: Who makes sense of participatory communication? In: BeardonHNewmanK (eds) How Wide Are the Ripples? From Local Participation to International Organizational Learning, Participatory Learning and Action. London: The International Institute for Environment and Development, 77–82.
7.
BrownADColvilleIPyeA (2015) Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organization Studies36(2): 265–77.
8.
BrownADStaceyPNandhakumarJ (2008) Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations61(8): 1035–62.
9.
CameronDBMishraABrownAN (2016) The growth of impact evaluation for international development: How much have we learned?Journal of Development Effectiveness8(1): 1–21.
10.
CamfieldLDuvendackM (2014) Impact evaluation – Are we ‘off the gold standard’?The European Journal of Development Research26(1): 1–11.
11.
ChambersR (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development22(7): 953–69.
12.
ChambersR (2007) Creating, evolving and supporting participatory methodologies: Lessons for funders and innovators. In: BrockKPettitJ (eds) Springs of Participation: Creating and Evolving Methods for Participatory Development. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing, 177–89.
13.
ChambersR (2015) Inclusive rigour for complexity. Journal of Development Effectiveness7(3): 327–35.
14.
ClandininDJ (2013) Engaging in Narrative Inquiry, 1st edn. London: Routledge.
15.
ClandininDJ (2019) Journeys in Narrative Inquiry: The Selected Works of D. Jean Clandinin. London: Routledge.
16.
CostantinoTEGreeneJC (2003) Reflections on the use of narrative in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation24(1): 35–49.
17.
DartJDaviesR (2003) A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation24(2): 137–55.
18.
DownwardPMearmanA (2007) Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: Reorienting economics into social science. Cambridge Journal of Economics31(1): 77–99.
19.
FAO (2018) Profil National Genre des Secteurs de l’Agriculture et du Développement Rural – Niger (Serie des Evaluations Genre des Pays). Niamey, Niger: FAO.
20.
FlickU (2018) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
21.
FrankAW (2002) Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods1(1): 109–17.
22.
GerrigRJEgidiG (2003) Cognitive psychological foundations of narrative experiences. In: HermanD (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 33–55.
23.
GreeneJC (2008) Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research2(1): 7–22.
24.
GreeneJCBenjaminLGoodyearL (2001) The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation7(1): 25–44.
25.
GreeneJCCaracelliVJGrahamWF (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis11(3): 255–74.
26.
GuijtI (2016) Innovation in evaluation: Using SenseMaker to assess the inclusion of smallholder farmers in modern markets. In: BellSAggletonP (eds) Monitoring and Evaluation in Health and Social Development. Oxford: Routledge, 187–202.
27.
HeinemannEVan HemelrijckAGuijtI (2017) Getting the most out of impact evaluation for learning, reporting and influence: Insights from piloting a Participatory Impact Assessment and Learning Approach (PIALA) with IFAD. IFAD Research Series16: 1–37.
28.
HermanD (2009) Basic Elements of Narrative. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publication.
29.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2015) Evaluation Manual. Rome: IFAD.
30.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2019) Evaluation d’impact du projet: Projet d’appui à la sécurité alimentaire et au développement dans la région de Maradi. Report, IFAD, Rome. Available at: https://www.ifad.org/en/web/ioe/evaluation/asset/41491421
31.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
32.
KleinGA (1998) Sources of Power: How People Make Decision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
KleinK (2003) Narrative construction, cognitive processing, and health. In: HermanD (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 56–84.
34.
KurtzC (2011) Working with your community’s stories. In: BeardonHNewmanK (eds) How Wide Are the Ripples? From Local Participation to International Organizational Learning, Participatory Learning and Action. London: The International Institute for Environment and Development, 167–17.
35.
KurtzC (2014) Working with Stories in Your Community or Organization: Participatory Narrative Inquiry. New York: Kurtz-Fernhout Publishing.
36.
KurtzC (2018) Are we ready for complexity. Journal on Policy and Complex Systems4(1): 135–54.
37.
KurtzCShimshockS (2011) Bridges to understanding and action: Using stories to negotiate meaning across community boundaries. In: BeardonHNewmanK (eds) How Wide Are the Ripples? From Local Participation to International Organizational Learning, Participatory Learning and Action. London: The International Institute for Environment and Development, 63–8.
38.
KurtzCSnowdenDJ (2003) The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal42(3): 462–83.
39.
LynamTFletcherC (2015) Sensemaking: A complexity perspective. Ecology and Society20(1): 65.
40.
LynamTWalkerI (2016) Making sense of climate change: Orientations to adaptation. Ecology and Society21(4): 17.
41.
McClintockC (2004) Using narrative methods to link program evaluation and organization development. The Evaluation Exchange9(4): 1–5.
42.
MilneKM (2015) Can sense-making tools inform adaptation policy? A practitioner’s perspective. Ecology and Society20(1): 66.
43.
OlsenW (2019) Bridging to action requires mixed methods, not only randomised control trials. The European Journal of Development Research31(2): 139–62.
44.
SabetSMBrownAN (2018) Is impact evaluation still on the rise? The new trends in 2010–2015. Journal of Development Effectiveness10(3): 291–304.
45.
Savin-BadenMVan NiekerkL (2007) Narrative inquiry: Theory and practice. Journal of Geography in Higher Education31(3): 459–72.
46.
ScottJMarquerCBertheF, et al. (2017) The gender, social and cultural influences on the management and use of unconditional cash transfers in Niger: A qualitative study. Public Health Nutrition20(9): 1657–65.
47.
ThurlowAMillsJH (2015) Telling tales out of school: Sensemaking and narratives of legitimacy in an organizational change process. Scandinavian Journal of Management31(2): 246–54.
48.
TonkinKSilverHPimentelJ, et al. (2021) How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: A practice review of the most significant change in ten countries. Archives of Public Health79(1): 1–8.
49.
Van der MerweSEBiggsRPreiserR, et al. (2019) Making sense of complexity: Using SenseMaker as a research tool. Systems7(2): 25.
50.
Van WesselM (2018) Narrative assessment: A new approach to evaluation of advocacy for development. Evaluation24(4): 400–18.
51.
WhiteH (2002) Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty analysis. World Development30(3): 511–22.
52.
WhiteH (2008) Of probits and participation: The use of mixed methods in quantitative impact evaluation. IDS Bulletin39(1): 98–109.
53.
WhiteH (2009) Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness1(3): 271–84.
54.
WhiteH (2014) Current challenges in impact evaluation. The European Journal of Development Research26(1): 18–30.
55.
WhiteH (2019) The twenty-first century experimenting society: The four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Communications5(1): 47.
56.
World Bank (2014) Propos d’hommes et de femmes au sujet des normes sociales au Niger. Report 83296, June. Niamey, Niger: PREM, Région Afrique.
57.
WouterseFS (2016) The distribution of power and household behavior: Evidence from Niger. Discussion paper 1548, August. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
