Michael ClemensVerified account

Your paper on goals and evaluation conflict elegantly expresses what I see in the behaviour change communication field. Thank you.

you're joking?

No I am not. I have shown the letter they sent me to numerous journalists over the years, and each time their reaction was that 'no one would care' about such 'insider bickering'. My view is quite different: It was a scandalous violation of academic ethics.

FOR FUCKING SERIOUS?! HOW IS/WAS THIS NOT BIGGER NEWS?!!

Thank you. I can think of at least four journalists I told about it, after they approached me regarding the broader incident. I showed them the letter. None of them thought it was something readers would be interested in.

JESUS. is there anything i/we can do now to help, michael? what would you like to happen here?

You’re far too kind, Alice. Thank you. I wasn’t asking for anything, just remarking in what had happened, and the gobstopping distance between what Project leaders could have done and what they chose to do.

Mostly I just want it to be common knowledge that that was done to me. Before long I plan to write a post mortem on the entire, unfortunate episode, knowing what we now know from the recent evaluations. I think I can serve my goal by incorporating the facts into that wrap-up.

Thank you. Ultrapoor Graduation and the MVP are very different packages. No way to know if either could work well, or which mix better, ex ante. Ultrapoor designers understood this and built in careful evaluation. MVP ridiculed it, calling itself “already proven”.

I am not taking sides. I am thinking there needs to have an academic study comparing the two. BTW BRAC's ultra poor initiative began with working with a government-run safety net program--Vulnerable Group Development program.

Hi Michael, is there a non-gated version of the world economics paper that drew such ire from The Project? (And I share the outrage of those below at their conduct)