The Project Features Why African Bible Bible Animation Comments

Books Audiovisuals Posters Cards

Daughters of St Paul Contact About Vocation

Pauline Institutes Other Institutions

Book of The Month

More about the book

This book is a gift to those yearning to empower the powerless. Whether you are an aspiring development education practitioner, or an established consultant; whether you are a student engaged in social research or in the wider field of social development, or just curious to know what this fairly contemporary emphasis on participatory , monitoring and Evaluation methods is all about, you will find this book a gold-mine of reliable information and useful resource material.

The author, through this book, aims at adding value to the readers’ wealth of knowledge and experience in collective search for more people-friendly monitoring, evaluating and project management approaches that suit the people as masters of their own destiny. In this he has ably succeeded. He has also reflected on the relevance of community based projects as vehicles for attainment of Millennium Development Goals at the local levels.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1
Introduction
…..
Emergence of a People Centred Approach
The emergence of participatory development approaches two decades ago marked the beginning of a new rural development era. Despite the relatively slow pace there is evidence that the practice of participation has infiltrated the length and breath of rural development endeavours in developing societies. Participatory approaches have not only triggered interdisciplinary interest but have also exerted influence in social development policy and planning circles, both at micro and macro levels.

Much of the success in the promotion of participatory development could largely be attributed to academic institutions where rural development personnel have often been trained. Equally important is the capacity building initiatives of Non-Governmental Organisations in the field as well as the Donor NGOs based in developed countries. In particular, the highly motivated NGO staff, usually deeply committed to their work and long-sighted in their operations, account for a great deal of the current widespread practice in participatory development.

Emergence of ‘participation’ as a new development thrust has enhanced the elevation of the ‘human person’ in development thinking with unprecedented commitment to ‘people’ as the purpose for development. The primary concern now is how development endeavours can improve people’s lives by developing their inherent potential for self-actualisation and enable them assume responsibilities that go with it. Material development is no longer seen as the primary motivation for development endeavours although it is a necessary ‘dividend’ of the participation development process. Experience has shown that unless people are central actors in activities and programmes that affect their lives, the impact of such interventions would either be negative, irrelevant, or insignificant as far as transforming people’s lives is concerned.

A Painful Process of Change
Participatory approaches to rural development fundamentally involve a painful process of change. It calls for a change of attitudes and structures which are treasured and cherished by those in power. It challenges the attitudes embedded in the conventional methods of intervention and extension in rural development whereby development was externally defined and eventually delivered to the people through extension network. In conventional extension approach, inputs and technical services are seen as the building blocks for rural development and were consequently counted, costed and carried to the people in the field.

People were believed to be too ignorant and perhaps too primitive, to effectively discern and decide what was good and appropriate for them. People were not expected to set up their own development priorities. This was best left to development experts whose role was to instruct and guide people. Poverty was therefore considered endogenous, that is, emanating from within the people as a result of a culmination of number of deficiencies on the part of the poor (such as illiteracy, ignorance, laziness, and lack of skills). These were perceived as exacerbated by high population growth and natural disasters including environmental conditions such as floods, droughts, epidemics and depleted soils. Poverty was therefore either blamed on the poor themselves or natural conditions. Development experts were seen to possess the cure for the poverty disease. This set of values is embroiled in the womb of ‘modernisation’ development paradigm.
‘Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted’ (Albert Einstein).
Cosmetic Adjustment – ‘New Wine in Old Skins’

On the other hand, participatory approaches have posed such great threat to those perpetuating the ‘extensionist’ orientation that the latter often found comfort in simply readjusting their programmes. The adjustments are merely attempts to ‘involve’ or ‘draw in’ people in the execution of the already predetermined ‘blueprint’ plans. Such attempts include forcing people to contribute labour, money and material resources towards the project costs. Needless to say, this reduces the project in-put costs. The development planners then find an excuse to announce a people’s participation experience.

An Easy Way-out
Such development planners may enjoy a leeway out of a reasonable criticism in the absence of a universally acceptable definition of what ‘participation’ entails. There seems to be no consensus on this, neither in academic circles nor at the field level. Perhaps this is a challenge that needs to be addressed in the new century (or should we have a millennium dimension of focus instead?).

As long as ‘participation’ deals with the dynamics of power and therefore decision-making processes, those in power will obviously seek to take advantage of the relativity of participatory approaches and thus tailor their own definitions in ways that do not threaten their positions. This is already happening in the field. To be sure, it is human to crave for the prestigious aura of power.

Participatory (Self-) Evaluation and Some Questions
Participatory (self-) evaluation is one of the numerous efforts in the field of rural development which seek to redistribute power in favour of the powerless. It constitutes a process of devolution of power for decision-making and review of those decisions to the same people served by the project in question. Participatory evaluation has therefore emerged as a complement to the whole thrust in participatory developments efforts. However, this not withstanding, it has been argued and observed that voices of a number of exponents of ‘participation’ tended to falter when it comes to the question of the evaluation of people’s developments efforts. In order to propel participation, a new set of values would need to be inculcated.

New Set of Values
One thing, which needs to be clarified at this early stage, is that participatory (self-) evaluation does not seek to dislodge professional evaluators out of business. Participatory evaluation simply calls for a new set of values and attitude among the professional evaluators. It calls for the recognition of people’s stake as equal partners not only in project development, but also in its evaluation.

Participatory evaluation calls for the recognition and respect for local knowledge and experience and people’s ability to review and judge their own experience with a reasonable measure of objectivity. In this sense, the role of external evaluators takes a new and different shape, assuming a new set of values and responsibilities as defined by the project people. Invariably, the external evaluator becomes more of a ‘process facilitator’ than ‘dispassionate observer’ (the roles of evaluation process facilitator are discussed below under the steps of participatory evaluation process).

Living in Two Worlds!
Chambers (1983) identifies two polarised worlds of rural development orientation. These are the ‘academics’ and the world of ‘practitioners.’ On this he observes:
“At one pole we have academic social scientists preoccupied with the ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ of development and underdevelopment…especially who gets what, why and the processes which they see as determining the answers; and at the other pole, we have practical administrators and technical scientists who concern themselves with the ‘how?’ of development, trying to change things and trying to get things done. (There exists) physical, linguistic and experiential distance between these two groups, each with its own culture…and often there is little sympathy or communication between them. To hear a seminar in university about modes of production in the morning and then attend a meeting in a government office about agricultural extension in the afternoon leaves a schizoid feeling. One might not know that both referred to the same farmers, and might doubt whether either discussion had anything to contribute to the other” (Chambers 1983, 29).

The world of conventional evaluators constitute the academic orientation, deeply concerned with the maintenance of such evaluation research values as ‘objectivity,’ ‘neutrality,’ ‘impartiality,’ ‘independence of evaluator’ and ‘validity’ of evaluation results. On the contrary, the world of participatory evaluation facilitators would emphasise more on the centrality of the people’s participation and control of the evaluation undertaking. Chambers would observe that ‘academics’ are perceived as critical and intolerant, lovers of endless debates and fruitless arguments, ‘muttering to one another in private languages.’ They are seen as alienated from the realities of the present life by their illusionary expectations of a ‘new world.’ Hence, “they criticise but do nothing to construct… question priorities instead of getting on with the job…look for things going wrong (and) write about failures not successes.” On the other hand, according to Chambers, practitioners are accused of being “narrow minded…and at best reformists,” unaware of the dynamics of social milieu they live in.

Reflecting on the two polarised worlds, Chambers would advance the theory that academics are oriented in their training to criticise ‘and are rewarded for it.’ They are taught to argue and to find fault. Practitioners on the other hand constantly seek opportunities to act and improve on the current situation. While academics look for ‘what has gone wrong,’ practitioners look for ‘what might go right.’ Hence, one has a negative view of reality while the other maintains an optimistic attitude. ‘Practitioners’ are committed to making better world come here and now whereas the academics have a vision of a better world to come without offering clear and practical guidelines towards that illusionary world.”

Why Choose Participatory Evaluation Framework
There are valid reasons why the participatory approach to Monitoring and Evaluation is preferred as advanced in this book. These are:

• It provides an opportunity for the project teams to begin open discussions on issues they were either afraid of or unwilling to discuss.

• It accords an opportunity for the project teams to get a better and deeper understanding of their programmes as each compares its own efforts with the efforts of their colleagues.

• It is possible to clarify firsthand field impressions during the participatory data analysis as well as during draft report validation session thus enhancing the accuracy and therefore the quality of the information gathered.

• The process accords an opportunity for the members of the project team to challenge each other and give each other both negative and positive feedback without fear of intimidation or repercussions. In this case, it becomes a team building opportunity for better future management of the project.

• At the end of the day, there is high sense of process ownership as local teams finally present and defend the evaluation findings to the wider forum of programme stakeholders during data validation. It is therefore expected that the level of utilisation of evaluation results and the team commitment to it would be equally high.
……….