ABSTRACT
Background: Policy makers need access to reliable data to monitor and evaluate the progress of development outcomes and targets such as sustainable development outcomes (SDGs). However, significant data and evidence gaps remain. Lack of resources, limited capacity within governments and logistical difficulties in collecting data are some of the reasons for the data gaps. Big data-that is digitally generated, passively produced and automatically collected-offers a great potential for answering some of the data needs. Satellite and sensors, mobile phone call detail records, online transactions and search data, and social media are some of the examples of big data. Integrating big data with the traditional household surveys and administrative data can complement data availability, quality, granularity, accuracy and frequency, and help measure development outcomes temporally and spatially in a number of new ways.The study maps different sources of big data onto development outcomes (based on SDGs) to identify current evidence base, use and the gaps. The map provides a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies. This study also discusses the risks, biases and ethical challenges in using big data for measuring and evaluating development outcomes. The study is a valuable resource for evaluators, researchers, funders, policymakers and practitioners in their effort to contributing to evidence informed policy making and in achieving the SDGs. Objectives: Identify and appraise rigorous impact evaluations (IEs), systematic reviews and the studies that have innovatively used big data to measure any development outcomes with special reference to difficult contexts. Search Methods: A number of general and specialised data bases and reporsitories of organisations were searched using keywords related to big data by an information specialist. Selection Criteria: The studies were selected on basis of whether they used big data sources to measure or evaluate development outcomes. Data Collection and Analysis: Data collection was conducted using a data extraction tool and all extracted data was entered into excel and then analysed using Stata. The data analysis involved looking at trends and descriptive statistics only. Main Results: The search yielded over 17,000 records, which we then screened down to 437 studies which became the foundation of our systematic map. We found that overall, there is a sizable and rapidly growing number of measurement studies using big data but a much smaller number of IEs. We also see that the bulk of the big data sources are machine-generated (mostly satellites) represented in the light blue. We find that satellite data was used in over 70% of the measurement studies and in over 80% of the IEs. Authors' Conclusions: This map gives us a sense that there is a lot of work being done to develop appropriate measures using big data which could subsequently be used in IEs. Information on costs, ethics, transparency is lacking in the studies and more work is needed in this area to understand the efficacies related to the use of big data. There are a number of outcomes which are not being studied using big data, either due to the lack to applicability such as education or due to lack of awareness about the new methods and data sources. The map points to a number of gaps as well as opportunities where future researchers can conduct research.
