Resources

This document describes the evolution of an auto-evaluation programme in the Gao and Tombouctou regions where ACORD-Mali is working to support informal village groups and associations. The programme aims to develop techniques which involve communities from project design to evaluation and is collaborating with two local research organisations, IMRAD and IRAM. Mechanisms used are: an identification/animation phase; action research; use of local resource persons; co-operation and consultation with the government; links with regional and local planning; and auto-evaluation. The paper describes the stages of the auto-evaluation process: both ACORD staff and communities set criteria and indicators and take part in the evaluation.

This paper presents the findings of a one and a half day investigation of the impact of BRAC's Rural Development Programme (RDP) on a village in Manikganj. It was conducted by 11 BRAC staff as a part of a RRA/PRA Refresher course and provided an opportunity to test out the methods to be used in the PRA component of the BRAC Impact Assessment Study [IAS]. The paper is divided into four main sections. In the first, the methodology used in the study is explained - main methods used time lines, seasonal calendars and wealth ranking. In the second, the location is introduced and the history of BRAC's involvement is reconstructed. The third section asks who has benefited, to what extent, and how ? And finally, the wider implications of this pilot study for the IAS are drawn out - these include the assertion that more time is needed for fieldwork, and the observation that, while RRA/PRA potentially offer a very good way of dealing with the IAS agenda, this potential will only be realized if "the most able of the BRAC staff trained in the methods are given the responsibility".

This manual "is designed to provide ideas on how to learn from and with rural women (and men!)". Its aim is to convince the readers of the need to consider gender and environmental issues in the planning, implementation and M&E of any development activity. The introduction reviews the general issues. Section 2 is a set of guide-lines on communication, learning and analysis of techniques for use in investigating local natural resources issues with rural women. These techniques are largely drawn from the RRA repertoire but their specific application to gender and the environment makes this volume more than 'just another RRA manual'. There are useful boxed examples of the use of various techniques and a list of books and organisations which offer more information on the subject. Section 3 comprises a number of illustrative case studies by groups of rural women. Section 4 describes some simple techniques which have been applied in conservation projects and case studies of how groups of rural women have used these ideas.

This manual follows on from a concept paper also prepared by D'Arcy Davis-Case and is the result of an Agroforestry Monitoring and Evaluation Project workshop which was held in 1988. The field manual is divided into three sections. Section One introduces the idea of participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation [PAME] and provides some two-way communication exercises for field staff. Section Two provides the methods determining information needs, and ways that information can be analyzed and presented. While Section Three described the information collecting tools, and offers some suggestions for the selection of tools. There are 23 tools listed in this latter selection, including; Semi-structured interviews (tool 9), Ranking, Rating and Sorting (tool 10), Maps and mapping (tool 14) and community directed visual images (tool 21). Although the RRA/PRA methodology is not specifically mentioned, this manual does represent a very useful and well ordered contribution to the literature of PM&E, while some of the tools described under PAME are directly applicable to a PRA orientated approach.

This is a landmark paper which firstly provides an important backdrop to the huge growth of literature on PE over the last four years, and secondly, reviews stages in the PE process as seen by five authors writing in the 1980s (in the annex). The author makes the fundamental point that true, or "active", PE means the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of PE (most PE he observes is "passive" whereby the people are only listened to, and not truly involved). Active PE would entail members of the community controlling the evaluation process by, for example, being the interviewers [a technique that now forms a useful tool in PRA based evaluations]. Many of the questions and issues raised in this report are still highly relevant today. For example, the author's conclusion that the very process behind "active PEs" could mean that running of the overall project is improved, provides sound justification for the current drive towards incorporating PRA methods into PM&E of development projects.

This draft paper provides a useful discussion of some of the main analytical and theoretical themes surrounding the concept of participation in connection with evaluation of development activities [N.B it does not look specifically at methods]. Comparing the 'mode of evaluation' characterising 'conventional development projects' with that of the emerging set of 'participatory evaluation' approaches, the author builds a workable framework through which he can ask the key questions concerning "why, when, and how" participation in project evaluation should occur. In answering these questions, emphasis is put on the development of an approach in which both internal (or participatory) and external methods of evaluation are seen to be complementary. Importantly, however, such a framework can only truly work if long term, local level, participation is seen occur through the entire project cycle; only then argues the author, can 'participatory evaluation methods' realize their full potential.