We design and deliver research, evaluation, and policy advisory that combines methodological rigour with a deep understanding of context. We use quantitative and qualitative methods to understand not only what is changing, but why, for whom, under what conditions, and what should happen next.
We match methods to the question rather than forcing complex problems into a preferred methodology. This practice provides the evidence and analytical foundation across Praxsys's other areas of work.
Independent evaluations ranging from theory-based and mixed-methods programme evaluations to experimental and quasi-experimental impact designs. Depending on the question and available data, our approaches include contribution analysis, process and outcome evaluation, difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, matching methods, and randomized designs. We combine quantitative estimates of change with qualitative inquiry to understand mechanisms, implementation, context, and why outcomes differ across groups and settings.
Research for questions where the answer is genuinely open: What is happening? Why is it happening? How is the system responding? What could be done differently? We design integrated quantitative and qualitative studies, combining surveys and secondary data with interviews, focus groups, participatory methods, institutional analysis, and other approaches appropriate to the question.
Design and strengthening of MEL systems that help programmes measure progress, test assumptions, learn, and adapt. Our work ranges from results frameworks, indicators, measurement systems, and evaluation plans to contribution analysis, outcome harvesting, adaptive learning, and systems-oriented approaches for programmes operating in complex environments.
We help ministries, development partners, and programme leadership turn evidence into decisions. Our advisory work clarifies policy options, trade-offs, risks, implementation implications, and likely consequences — bridging the gap between research findings and choices decision-makers can act on.
We help clients understand what is already known before commissioning new research or making major decisions. Our work includes systematic and scoping reviews, rapid evidence assessments, structured literature reviews, evidence mapping, and synthesis of research and programme evidence around specific policy and implementation questions.
Baseline studies · Diagnostic assessments · Mid-term evaluations · Endline and final evaluations · Impact evaluations · Programme and portfolio reviews · Process and implementation evaluations · Evaluability assessments · Theory of Change and results framework reviews · Outcome and contribution studies · MEL system design and strengthening · Learning reviews · Political economy and institutional analysis · Systems analysis · Policy research · Rapid evidence assessments · Systematic and scoping reviews
Across these assignments, our focus is not simply on producing findings, but on generating evidence that helps clients understand what changed, why it changed, what influenced the result, and what to do next.
An endline evaluation of GAIN's programme to commercialise biofortified zinc wheat in Pakistan, assessing achievement of objectives on adoption, market penetration, and nutritional reach. Mixed-methods design combining quantitative household and market survey data with qualitative research across the wheat value chain.
A mixed-methods baseline study for the AGECS project, combining a household survey with qualitative research to establish baseline conditions on gender equality, women's empowerment, and civil society engagement across Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral. The study provided the measurement foundation for programme monitoring and subsequent evaluation.
An external mid-term evaluation of IOM's multi-sectoral resilience programme (November 2023 – May 2027), funded by the Government of the Netherlands. The evaluation assessed progress across five outcome areas — evidence and mobility tracking; documentation and legal identity; protection services; basic services (WASH, shelter, cash assistance); and livelihoods and community resilience — against OECD-DAC criteria. A non-experimental, theory-based mixed-methods design combined a phone-based beneficiary survey (402 interviews across 11 districts), ten FGDs with 88 Afghan assistance recipients, and key informant interviews. The evaluation also assessed the programme's adaptation to Pakistan's Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan (IFRP) and the substantially changed operating context at the 2026 mid-point.
Partner & Practice Lead — Impact Evaluation and Survey Research
Bilal Hassan Khan leads Praxsys's impact evaluation and survey research practice with 25+ years in research design, mixed-methods evaluation, and policy-oriented research across international development. He holds an MS in Sociology / Social Research Methods from the University of Oxford and completed graduate coursework in Quantitative Methods at Harvard University.
For practice enquiries: contact@praxsysassociates.com
We work with governments, donors, INGOs, and foundations on long-form research, evaluation, and program design. Tell us about the problem.