Enhancing participatory evaluation in a humanitarian aid project (original) (raw)
Related papers
Global Health Action, 2020
Background: Participatory approaches that engage affected populations are increasingly applied in humanitarian health programs in concert with emerging accountability frameworks and the rapid growth of research in these settings. Participatory initiatives within this domain appear to be largely adopted at an operational level and are infrequently reported as a component of research efforts. Yet the evidence of the benefits of research involving community members is growing worldwide. This is the first review of participatory research (PR) in humanitarian settings. Objectives: This study sought to understand the extent to which PR values and practices have been adopted in humanitarian health programs and to explore key issues in applying PR in this context. Methods: This scoping review was based on the approach developed by Arksey and O'Malley. The search for relevant peer-reviewed articles included scientific databases, a humanitarian database, targeted journals and online resources published since 2009. Eleven articles were retrieved and reviewed to identify practices and key issues related to conducting PR in humanitarian settings. Results: Four key themes were identified: building trust with local research stakeholders and participants; the importance of contextual understanding; implications of collaborating with affected populations in PR, and neutrality of researchers and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Study teams considered PR as a valued approach where there was mistrust or a need for contextualized understanding. The studies described how adaptations made during the study optimized collaboration with affected populations and how the presence of NGOs influenced the approach and results of PR. Conclusions: One of the most important contributions of humanitarian health programs is to develop 'medical practices that are better adapted to the living conditions and priorities of patients who are generally ignored'. Participatory approaches, such as PR, support the development of health-related practices that are more relevant and sustainable for affected populations.
The journey from rhetoric to reality: Participatory evaluation in a development context (2015)
In this paper, we focus on participatory evaluation in the context of international development and specifically on the emerging empirical knowledge base. In a prior review and critique of research on participatory evaluation (Cousins and Chouinard 2012), we examined 121 studies, with only 21 (17 %) situated in development contexts. However, the circumstances and challenges for international development and for development evaluation are distinct from those found in developed countries and therefore warrant separate consideration. To provide a more focused and detailed understanding of participatory evaluation in international development contexts, in this paper we augment our initial sample to a total of 40 studies on participatory evaluation in development published over the past 16.5 years. Based on an analysis of this research and related theoretical and conceptual contributions we identify and discuss eight emergent themes: multiplicity of relationships, consequences of stakeholder selection, characterization of participation, contextual complexity, methodological requirements, cultural influence, politics and power and learning and capacity building. We conclude with some reflections on an agenda for research.
Oxford Development Studies
The Participatory Action Research (PAR) study with Young Mothers in Liberia, Sierra Leone and northern Uganda which took place from 2006 to 2009 aimed to understand what 'reintegration' meant to young mothers formerly associated with armed groups. It also implemented social action initiatives designed by study participants to promote their wellbeing and achieve reintegration. We evaluated the study using multiple participatory evaluation methods, situating evaluation as part of the cycle of research and action. This approach facilitated young mothers' participation in developing the criteria by which the study and its reintegration outcomes would be judged. We describe each method and what we uniquely learned from using a participatory evaluation approach. We discuss how this approach is well-suited for complex studies, can enhance data quality, increases capacity of all involved in the evaluation and supports the critical reflexivity necessary for participatory studies to succeed.
Evaluation in Conflict Zones: Methodological and Ethical Challenges
This article explores the methodological and ethical challenges particular to the conduct and use of evaluations in conflict zones. It does this through examining the synergistic interaction of conflict dynamics and the four domains of evaluation — ethics, methodology, logistics, and politics. Drawing on evaluation theory and practice, as well as field experience, the article seeks to contribute to the building of a more methodologically self-conscious sub-field of evaluation in conflict zones— with implications not only for the field of evaluation, but also for researchers and practitioners in the fields of development, humanitarianism, peacebuilding, and private sector investment.
Evaluation of Humanitarian Action: Pilot Guide
As humanitarian evaluation practice becomes ever more vital in an increasingly diverse and complex system, this guide offers urgently needed support for evaluation specialists and non-specialists alike. Evaluation practice has evolved considerably, and much technical guidance already exists. Uniquely, however, this ALNAP pilot guide consolidates much of the current knowledge about every stage of a humanitarian evaluation: from initial decision to final dissemination. The guide format is a user-friendly and accessible interactive PDF. It contains real-life examples, practical tips, definitions and step-by-step advice on specific elements of evaluations at different stages of the process.
Journal of Environmental Management, 2016
Participatory approaches are now increasingly recognized and used as an essential element of policies and programs, especially in regards to natural resource management (NRM). Most practitioners, decision-makers and researchers having adopted participatory approaches also acknowledge the need to monitor and evaluate such approaches in order to audit their effectiveness, support decision-making or improve learning. Many manuals and frameworks exist on how to carry out monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for participatory processes. However, few provide guidelines on the selection and implementation of M&E methods, an aspect which is also often obscure in published studies, at the expense of the transparency, reliability and validity of the study. In this paper, we argue that the selection and implementation of M&E methods are particularly strategic when monitoring and evaluating a participatory process. We demonstrate that evaluators of participatory processes have to tackle a quadruple challenge when selecting and implementing methods: using mixed-methods, both qualitative and quantitative; assessing the participatory process, its outcomes, and its context; taking into account both the theory and participants' views; and being both rigorous and adaptive. The M&E of a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori Region, Uganda, is used as an example to show how these challenges unfold on the ground and how they can be tackled. Based on this example, we conclude by providing tools and strategies that can be used by evaluators to ensure that they make utile, feasible, coherent, transparent and adaptive methodological choices when monitoring and evaluating participatory processes for NRM.
Expanding the scope of humanitarian program evaluation
Prehospital and disaster medicine
The effectiveness of humanitarian programs normally is evaluated according to a limited number of pre-defined objectives. These objectives typically represent only selected positive expected impacts of program interventions and as such, are inadequate benchmarks for understanding the overall effectiveness of aid. This is because programs also have unexpected impacts (both positive and negative) as well as expected negative impacts and expected positive impacts beyond the program objectives. The authors contend that these other categories of program impacts also should be assessed, and suggest a methodology for doing so that draws on input from the perspectives of beneficiaries. This paper includes examples of the use of this methodology in the field. Finally, the authors suggest future directions for improving this type of expanded assessment and advocate for its widespread use, both within and without the field of disaster response.