The Politics and Consequences of Including Stakeholders in International Development Evaluation

Abstract

Participatory evaluation approaches have a relatively long history of advocacy and application in the international development evaluation community. Despite widespread use and apparent resonance with practitioners and donors alike, very little empirical research exists on why and how participatory evaluation approaches are used in international development settings. In this article, we present results derived from a mixed method investigation of a sample of practicing international development evaluators regarding their perceptions of how and why stakeholders are included in international development evaluations. Findings suggest that participatory evaluation approaches are interpreted and practiced in widely differing ways. Implications for international development evaluation practice and future research are discussed.Participatory approaches to evaluations of international development and aid programs first came to prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a direct response to international development programs that were seemingly mismatched to the needs of their intended beneficiaries (Chambers, 1992;Townsley, 1996). Including various stakeholder groups in the planning and evaluation process was believed to create development programs that both were better suited to these groups' needs and also more effective. Thus, stakeholders were not viewed exclusively as sources of evaluation data but also as important collaborators in the evaluation process. The adoption and recognition of participatory evaluation methods in international development represented a clear shift from what had previously been an almost exclusive focus on donor priorities to an expanded focus that included the

La Evaluación Participativa de acciones comunitarias como metodología de aprendizaje para el empoderamiento personal y comunitario: Estudio de casos y procesos de empoderamiento

“…Conclusiones generales de la investigación y discusión Weaver y Cousins (2004) identifican tres justificaciones para la participación de las personas en los procesos de EP: pragmática (orientada a la resolución de problemas); política (orientada a la justicia social); y epistemológica (orientada a la validación del conocimiento). Cullen et al (2011), después de un amplio análisis de la bibliografía científica, caracterizan estas tres justificaciones como consecuencias positivas de la EP. El desarrollo de los procesos de EP en las tres comunidades-caso ha evidenciado, de manera clara estas tres justificaciones; cosa que confirma los análisis previos de aquellos autores.…”

“…Cullen et al (2011) have declared, after profound study of scientific literature, these three justifications to be positive consequences of PE. In all three community-case studies, the processes of PE have clearly presented these justifications, what proves previous analysis from these experts.…”

“…Despite the recent boom of this kind of practices, many authors have pointed out that little reflection and empirical research has been done on Participatory Evaluation (Cullen, Coryn and Rugh, 2011); which allows us to consider it an emerging practice.…”

Evaluating outcomes from stakeholders’ perception: evidence from an irrigation project in Nigeria

“…PME entails an 'involvement of multiple stakeholders in the design and implementation of observing, systematising and interpreting processes as a basis for joint decisions about improving their joint activities' (Bayer & Waters-Bayer, 2002:5). Participation is certainly the key distinguishing characteristic of PME, and this clearly differentiates it from conventional approaches to M&E (Chouinard;Cullen et al, 2011;Estrella, 2000;Estrella & Gaventa, 1998;Holte-McKenzie et al, 2006;Jacobs et al, 2010)…”

An Evaluation of the Transparency and Overall Quality of Evaluation at the Swiss National Science Foundation

“…In an effort to facilitate and increase the likelihood of evaluation use and impact, relevant stakeholders within the SNSF were consulted at various stages of the evaluation process (Cousins, 2003(Cousins, , 2004Cousins, Donohue, & Bloom, 1996;Cousins & Earl, 1992;Cousins & Whitmore, 1998;Cullen, Coryn, & Rugh, 2011;Patton, 2012). As described in the inception and interim reports of this evaluation , the most extensive participation of SNSF stakeholders occurred when reformulating and ordering the focal evaluation questions and subquestions, through a feasibility analysis, including elimination of particular questions that were beyond the scope and resources of the current evaluation (e.g., the use of bibliometric methods for informing funding decisions; see Coryn, 2006;Coryn, Hattie, Scriven, & Hartmann, 2007;Coryn & Scriven, 2008), and when defining and operationalizing key terminology such as 'bias,' 'transparency,' and 'young researcher.'…”