2005
DOI: 10.1177/0193841x05276654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Major Factors Influencing HIV/AIDS Project Evaluation

Abstract: This article aimed at finding out if participatory processes (group discussions, enactments, and others) do make a valuable contribution in communication-based project implementation leading to the limiting of the spread of HIV/ AIDS through sexual behavior and a change of attitude-the essence required for successful intervention. Group participatory processes were also noted to have contributed in overriding, to a great extent, limitations arising from sociodemographic differences in the attainment of project… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As Cornwall & Jewkes (1995:1667 explain, 'locating the debate about participatory research within the controversies of the qualitative-quantitative divide obscures issues of agency, representation and power which lie at the core of the methodological critiques from which the development of participatory approaches stem'. Despite this ongoing discord, the inevitable result is that many researchers and evaluators struggle to reconcile and realign their participatory approaches to fit with the demands of donor agencies evaluation architecture (BiNiba & Green 2005;Gariba 1998).…”
Section: Divergent Needs Between Funding Agencies and Stakeholdersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Cornwall & Jewkes (1995:1667 explain, 'locating the debate about participatory research within the controversies of the qualitative-quantitative divide obscures issues of agency, representation and power which lie at the core of the methodological critiques from which the development of participatory approaches stem'. Despite this ongoing discord, the inevitable result is that many researchers and evaluators struggle to reconcile and realign their participatory approaches to fit with the demands of donor agencies evaluation architecture (BiNiba & Green 2005;Gariba 1998).…”
Section: Divergent Needs Between Funding Agencies and Stakeholdersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As others have argued (Chouinard, 2013a, 2013b), the standard approach to evaluation remains the collection of impartial, evidence-based, and objective information in the form of quantifiable measurements in order to satisfy accountability requirements. Collecting and reporting these data are generally understood to be critical to organizational survival and assessing the effectiveness of public health intervention (Chouinard, 2013a, 2013b; Dodd & Meezan, 2003; Harper, Contreras, Bangi, & Pedraza, 2003; Miller & Cassel, 2000; Niba & Green, 2005; Taveras et al, 2007). At the same time, numbers-based reporting and accountability practices affect the ways in which service providers interact with clients, their roles within organizations, and the work context more broadly.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%