Strong evidence is of central importance in informing policy and programming decisions across UK government departments. Robust research and evaluation generates the evidence required to form judgements, deliberate options and make intelligent decisions about how to spend scarce financial resources on behalf of taxpayers. It is critical to the work of all DFID staff and Ministers, and especially for the presentation of appraisal options in Business Cases. It is vital that research evidence is evaluated in a fair and balanced way.
What is the purpose of this guidance note? 2. This Note provides a thorough introduction to: a. the appraisal of the quality of individual studies; b. the assessment of the strength of bodies of evidence. 3. The Note is an integral part of DFID’s commitment to equipping staff with the skills and specialist advice to help them improve their use of evidence. Other resources include: a. A Guide to Research Designs & Methods; b. The Evaluation Handbook, providing guidance on evaluation designs and methods; c. ‘Using statistics’ How to Note; d. A set of guidance materials about how to summarise research evidence.
4. Assessing the strength of evidence is a challenging task. This Note sets a high standard for DFID staff. It requires a combination of technical knowledge and individual judgement. It may also require consultation with research specialists within and outside DFID. Proper assessment of evidence will help staff use evidence responsibly and judiciously for the benefit of better policy and programmes. Specifically, this Note will: a. help staff to broadly understand the distinctions between different data collection and analytical methods and what they can and cannot conclude as a result; b. establish a common language that can be used in the discussion of the strength of evidence.
5. This guidance is applicable to all categories of research and evaluation evidence used by DFID staff, especially in the social sciences. It applies to evidence generated through both quantitative and qualitative research methods. It recognises that some academic disciplines, such as medicine, and the methodologies associated with them, have a stronger tradition of assessing quality of research than social science disciplines. The Note references alternative evidence grading frameworks accordingly. To ensure consistency, this Note also draws on approaches developed in other parts of Government to assess research and evaluation evidence. 6. A summary of this Note is incorporated into the revised Business Case guidance for ease of reference.