Participatory Evaluation
How are Participatory Evaluations Different?
Primary stakeholders
those whom the initiative is designed to help - should be central to participatory processes. After all it is their analysis (of what has changed as a result of an intervention) which is most important.
Participatory reviews and evaluations are quite distinct from conventional evaluation processes. In conventional evaluation processes, external consultants are commissioned to assess the worth of interventions. Participatory evaluations reverse these roles. In these processes, a wide range of stakeholders (particularly local people, but also staff from the implementing agency, Management Services Consultants, Local Government, etc) decide together how progress should be assessed and findings from the evaluation acted upon. The role of external consultants in a participatory evaluation is to facilitate the process and to contribute analytical skills.
Caveats
The implementation of participatory approaches, including participatory evaluation, can be challenging and unpredictable in outcome. They are often constrained by and clash with organisational structures and cultures, bureaucratic goals and unequal power relationships. Much depends on the quality of implementation and competencies in facilitation. A high level of self-reflection, critical awareness and continuous learning and improvement on the part of implementers is a key success factor to exploit the potential of these approaches and prevent their misuse.
Participatory processes, involving stakeholder groups in this way, can reveal valuable lessons about what has gone well and less well for different stakeholders. The process can lead to increasing local people’s involvement in, and ownership of, development activities. Participatory evaluations can also be very challenging.
The process encourages different stakeholders, particularly donors and implementing agencies, to examine their assumptions of what constitutes progress, and to face up to the contradictions and conflict that can emerge. Indeed, Participatory Evaluation provides an opportunity for NZAID to better focus on NZAID’s ultimate goal of improving people’s lives. Table 1 sets out some key differences between participatory and conventional evaluation.
| Dimension | Conventional Evaluation | Participatory Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
|
Who plans and manages the process? |
Typically senior NZAID staff, DPMs and outside consultants. |
DPMs write an initial TOR. Consultant(s) acts as facilitator(s). Local people, project staff, mangers and other stakeholders are central to managing the process. |
|
Role of primary stakeholders (the people who are intended to benefit from the intervention) |
Provide information |
Help design the evaluation, develop questions & methodology, collect & analyse information, share findings and develop future proposed action. |
|
Consultants' role |
To provide expertise in measurement of performance against programme/project objectives using standardised procedures and tools. |
Main role is to facilitate the stakeholder team in carrying out the evaluation. Key qualifications include good communication, facilitation & analytical skills. |
|
How success is measured |
Externally-defined/assessed. Often assessment is made against initial programme assumptions. |
Internally-defined. Greater possibility of exploring multiple view points and disagreements. The voices of the people who are supposed to benefit from the intervention are clearly articulated - and heard. |
|
Approach |
Predetermined and fixed |
Indicative and adaptive. Learning is emphasised. |
Conventional evaluation can be made more participatory by:
- using open-ended methods of analysis that allow us to learn about unexpected outcomes or things we don’t realise we need to know
- employing participatory tools and approaches to draw out multiple viewpoints
- engaging stakeholders in “deeper” or more equitable levels of participation (Table 2)
- adjusting the intended outcome of participation (Table 3).
| Contractual | One stakeholder has sole decision-making power over most of the decisions taken and can be considered the “owner” of the process. Others participate in activities defined by this actor. — they may be formally or informally contracted to provide services and support. |  |
|---|---|---|
| Consultative | Most of the key decisions are kept with one stakeholder group, but emphasis is put on consultation and gathering information from others, especially for identifying constraints, opportunities, priority setting and/or evaluation. | |
| Collaborative | Different stakeholders collaborate and are put on an equal footing, emphasising linkage through an exchange of knowledge, different contributions and a sharing of decision-making power during the process. | |
| Collegiate | Different stakeholders work together as colleagues or partners. Ownership and responsibility are equally distributed among the partners and decisions are made by agreement or consensus. |
Table 3. Characteristics of intended outcomes
Legitimisation
Participation is evoked to obtain local people’s consent for outsiders to do what they perceive as important, or participation may be used because is it fashionable or in demand.
Effectiveness/ Efficiency
Participation is used to make use of local knowledge and/or to ensure demand-orientation. i.e. that locally felt needs are addressed
Capacity building/learning
Participation is a means for gaining practical experience through working together, and being involved in analysis, planning and decision-making. It leads to personal and professional growth among local and other stakeholders. It can result in changes in attitude, increased capacity for reflection, improved communication skills, more conscious decision-making, management, organisational capacity etc.
Emancipation/ transformation/ empowerment
Participation is considered as a means of enhancing local people’s capacity for self-directed development. The process is seen to increase capacity for articulation and negotiation of interests, leadership, collective action as well as critical consciousness and self-esteem among marginalised social groups.