PDIA in practice: a case study of INOVASI, an Australian-funded education program in Indonesia (2016-2020)

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Problem-driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) is a prominent but little-evaluated flexible aid methodology. INOVASI, an Australian-funded aid program in Indonesia's primary school education sector, is the most prominent example of an aid-funded PDIA program. This thesis asks what we can learn about PDIA from INOVASI.

It combines theoretical discussions and empirical research, including a critical review of program documents, stakeholders' interviews and my immersion in the INOVASI program for six months. The thesis makes five significant findings about PDIA.

First, although the development literature argues that flexibility makes aid more effective, the experience of INOVASI shows that there are costs as well as benefits from aid flexibility. There are clear instances where INOVASI would have benefited from stricter rules and a more detailed design.

Second, PDIA's strong emphasis on local contexts and novel solutions can undervalue existing evidence. Expecting a single aid program to find what would improve learning outcomes in Indonesia was implausible, which explains why INOVASI abandoned such an approach. The thesis argues that INOVASI moved to a position intermediate between PDIA - which undervalues pre-existing evidence - and TWP (Thinking and Working Politically), an alternative flexible methodology that assumes the technical solution is known. It adapted an approach to teacher training that already had evidence that it worked, implemented it, and collected further evidence of its effectiveness.

Third, PDIA requires the reform team to do both research and advocacy. The experience of INOVASI points to just how demanding a task this is, especially for a new team. Some of INOVASI's research did not meet commonly accepted academic standards that dedicated research organisations would usually meet. While there are cases of organisations that effectively combine both, there are also advantages to donors separately funding research and advocacy.

Fourth, PDIA has its roots in incrementalism but has transformative ambitions. This thesis casts doubt on the compatibility of these two. The research affirms the benefits of an incrementalist approach, provided that, at least in the education sector, it is carried out consecutively across a series of aid programs instead of one. However, the expectation of being transformational was unrealistic.

Fifth, the implementation of PDIA by donors will be limited by known weaknesses in foreign aid. The research shows that a weak feedback loop, donor risk aversion, the knowledge burden, the difficulty in making long-term commitments, and an emphasis on outputs rather than outcomes (the counter-bureaucracy) were all impediments to INOVASI's successful implementation of PDIA, although to differing degrees and durations.

Finally, while more research is needed, PDIA emerges from this detailed study of INOVASI as a methodology with useful insights derived from a focus on problem identification and reflection, but not one that is sufficiently strong to provide the basis for aid interventions.