By: Dr. Shadia Nassar – Principle Researcher (Evaluation)
Outcome Harvesting is an evaluation approach that allows us to retrospectively identify emergent impact by collecting examples of what has changed in “behaviour writ large” (actions, relationships, policies, practices) and then work backwards to determine whether, and how an intervention has contributed to these changes. Some people may ask, What is the importance of this method and how is it different from other qualitative approaches?
Outcome harvesting offers a distinctive and cutting-edge approach to evaluating the results and impacts of development interventions, placing a strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement, flexibility, and participant perspectives. As such, it shares many traits with other qualitative evaluation methodologies in terms of data collection, focus on context, emphasis on participant perspectives, use of triangulation, and inductive approach to analysis. However, the most important aspect is that its emphasis on learning and adaptation sets it apart from other qualitative methods.
Outcome Harvesting differs from other evaluation methods in that it does not focus on measuring progress towards predetermined objectives. Instead, it gathers evidence of changes that have occurred and then assesses how an intervention may have contributed to these changes. The outcomes identified can be positive or negative, intended or unintended, direct or indirect, but there should be a plausible connection between the intervention and the outcomes.
When and How to Use It Effectively
Outcome harvesting is considered most useful under the three conditions:
(1) Outcome harvesting is most effective when the focus is on outcomes rather than activities or outputs. It helps to assess what changed and why to understand change processes. It is not intended to evaluate whether activities were conducted as planned.
(2) Outcome harvesting is ideal for use in complex situations where the cause-and-effect relationship is unclear, and where various actors impact change. Changes in these contexts are often unpredictable, requiring constant adjustments to plans, and are particularly beneficial in fields such as policy influencing, capacity building, empowerment, and networking.
(3) Outcome harvesting is best suited for M&E exercises aimed at learning about change to enhance future performance. It is valuable when stakeholders seek to comprehend how and why changes occur, in addition to identifying the changes themselves. (1)
Key elements and components
The key element of outcome harvesting is outcome statements that describe the change, who made it, when and where, what was the plausible contribution of the intervention’s activities, strategies and outputs to each change, and the significance of the change.(2)
Outcome statements are specific, measurable, and verifiable statements that clearly describe the change that has occurred as a result of an intervention or programme. These statements should answer the questions of what has changed, who has changed, when and where the change occurred, and why the change is significant.
An example of this approach is the scaling of a weather and climate information policy in Senegal by using outcome harvesting within a broader evaluation approach to evaluate how research actions contributed to the scaling of weather and climate information services (WCS) in Senegal (Blundo-Canto et al., 2021). WCS are the production, translation, transformation, transmission, access, and use of scientific information on weather and climate to support decision-making. In Senegal, the dissemination of weather and climate forecasts, along with recommendations for economic sectors and actors, expanded from pilot research projects to a national-level strategy over two decades. The evaluation of the outcomes of this scaling process had accountability and a learning objective and was based on three components. The reconstruction of the history of innovation (Douthwaite et al., 2005): the detailed timeline and interconnection of events, factors, actions, and actors that marked the scaling of WCS. The primary finding of the approach that integrated impact pathway analysis, outcome harvesting, and innovation histories was that, over the previous 20 years, weather and climate services have greatly decreased rainfall variability and extreme climate events in the West African Sahel region.
The outcome harvesting allowed researchers to identify how climate information was incorporated into sectoral and national adaptation plans, strategies, and programmes, as well as in the coordination of actions by multiple actors at the local level. It also allowed us to identify other sectors beyond agriculture, including fisheries, energy, and water resource protection, that were using WCS, showing that the outcomes generated crossed institutional, sectoral, and governance boundaries. Overall, the outcome harvesting of the research findings benefited the understanding of the scaling process of WCS by providing a detailed analysis of the actions taken, the challenges faced, and the potential areas for improvement. This information can be used for accountability, knowledge production, and addressing key challenges in the production, dissemination, and use of WCS.
Comparison to other Qualitative methods
The key feature that makes outcome harvesting stand out compared to other qualitative evaluation methods is its focus on achieved outcomes independent of whether they had been planned or not, allowing for the capture of unintended or unexpected outcomes, both positive and negative. The method provides a systematic and structured way to identify these changes and to work backwards to determine whether and how the intervention contributed to them. Outcome harvesting produces quantitative and qualitative data to describe outcomes. However, it does not provide a quantitative assessment of these outcomes. Rather, it informs on the processes and strategies that have led to a quantitative outcome measured with other methods. Outcome harvesting can be a valuable tool in impact evaluations, as it allows for a holistic and participatory approach to evaluating the outcomes and impacts of a project and can provide an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the project’s impact on the community.
As with other qualitative approaches, outcome harvesting focuses on making the evaluation useful for its users and the intended uses of the evaluation findings. It may be used for learning, decision-making, planning, accountability, informing partners, etc., depending on what the primary users agree upon at the design stage. Using this method guides how to apply the method and how to assess the contribution of the intervention to social change outcomes. The extent to which the contribution of the intervention is assessed in the harvest will be higher when the use is accountable at the end of an intervention than when the intended use is learning for adaptive management during the intervention.
Limitations of the Outcome Harvesting Method
Although outcome harvesting is a valuable evaluation method that can provide valuable insights into the impact of a program or intervention, it is not without its limitations. Some key limitations of the outcome harvesting method include:
(1) Subjective nature: The outcomes identified through outcome harvesting may be subjective and influenced by the perspectives and biases of the individuals involved in the process.
(2) Limited scope: Outcome harvesting may not capture the full range of outcomes achieved by a programme or intervention, particularly if certain outcomes are not easily observable or identifiable.
(3) Lack of comparability: Since the outcomes are not predetermined, it may be difficult to compare the results of outcome harvesting across different projects or programmes.
(4) Resource-intensive: Outcome harvesting can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant investment in data collection, analysis, and documentation.
(5) Limited accountability: Without clear indicators or targets to measure progress against, it can be challenging to hold stakeholders accountable for achieving the intended outcomes.
(6) Bias towards more visible outcomes: Outcome harvesting may tend to focus on outcomes that are more visible or easily observable, potentially overlooking less tangible or long-term impacts.
Concluding Thoughts
As a researcher, one key area that may raise questions is the difficulty in defining and measuring outcomes in outcome harvesting. This may require future research to develop more precise and standardised methods for identifying and assessing outcomes to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings. This lack of clarity and precision in defining outcomes can lead to inconsistencies in evaluation results and make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
In addition, indirect causal links between activities and outcomes may make it more difficult to identify and attribute outcomes to project activities. Outcome harvesting may be less effective in such situations compared to projects with more straightforward cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, it is important to carefully assess the project context and consider the feasibility and appropriateness of outcome harvesting before using it as an evaluation method.
Read more about Includovate’s efforts to empower researchers from the Global South. Know more about our Includovators visit our page Meet the team.
Reference list:
(1) Outcome harvesting. Intrac for Civil Society. Retrieved March 29, 2024, from https://www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Outcome-harvesting.pdf
(2) Outcome harvesting. Science and Common Good Editions. Retrieved March 15, 2024, from https://scienceetbiencommun.pressbooks.pub/pubpolevaluation/chapter/outcome-harvesting/#:~:text=The%20key%20element%20of%20outcome,the%20significance%20of%20the%20change.
About the Author:
Dr. Shadia Nassar is an accomplished monitoring and evaluation specialist with over 25 years of expertise, particularly in gender-related issues. Throughout her career, she has developed, implemented, and managed comprehensive M&E frameworks for a wide range of projects, ensuring a strong focus on gender inclusivity and responsiveness. Her experience spans multiple sectors—including education, health, economic empowerment, governance, and social protection—and she tailors M&E methods to suit the unique requirements of each sector. Shadia’s approach integrates innovative and participatory techniques that embed gender considerations throughout all phases of project design, delivery, and impact assessment. With a strong background in capacity building, she has provided technical support and training to diverse groups, including project teams, government agencies, community organisations, and stakeholders, to foster sustainable gender equality outcomes and enhance project success.
Recent Posts
- Lights, Camera, Inclusion: Rewriting Hollywood’s Disability Narrative
- Meet the changemakers : Natalia Pastori Cubelo
- Gen Z Mentality: Diversity Drives Innovation
- Understanding HREC and IRB Approval Processes: What You Need to Know
- Beyond Boundaries: Unpaid Care Work and Its Impact on Women, Including Those with Disabilities