Methodological lessons joint evaluation of conflict prevention and peace building in drc 2002 2010
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

Day 2, Presentation in Oslo ‘What Have We learnt From the Application Phase?’ 17 February 2011 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 44 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Methodological Lessons Joint Evaluation of Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building in DRC, 2002-2010. Day 2, Presentation in Oslo ‘What Have We learnt From the Application Phase?’ 17 February 2011. The General Feedback On the Draft Working Guidance.

Download Presentation

Day 2, Presentation in Oslo ‘What Have We learnt From the Application Phase?’ 17 February 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Methodological lessons joint evaluation of conflict prevention and peace building in drc 2002 2010

Methodological LessonsJoint Evaluation of Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building in DRC, 2002-2010

Day 2, Presentation in Oslo

‘What Have We learnt From the Application Phase?’

17 February 2011


The general feedback on the draft working guidance

The General Feedback On the Draft Working Guidance

  • Feedback received from the Congo evaluation team, but also from recent work with USAID-OTI, Ausaid, and training given by Channel on evaluation of CPPB.

  • The Guidance is useful introduction, especially for practitioners with limited experience of evaluation. Particularly useful are the overview of key steps and the development of the evaluation questions.

  • Intrigued by Theories of Change and importance of conflict analysis. Find Theories of Change better for project level.

  • However the Guidance does not tackle the “how to” questions: conflict analysis (which, when, how), testing theories of change, baselines.

Channel Research


The evaluative framework used for the congo evaluation

Mandate & Steering

The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation

1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria

Effects on the Conflict

Outcomes

2. Sample of Projects

4. Research Hypotheses and Themes

3. Conflict Analysis


The evaluative framework used for the congo evaluation1

Mandate & Steering

The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation

Good to have simple questions

but tricky to analyse by “results”.

1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria

Effects on the Conflict

Outcomes

2. Sample of Projects

4. Research Hypotheses and Themes

3. Conflict Analysis


The evaluative framework used for the congo evaluation2

Mandate & Steering

The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation

Issue N° 1:

No Theories of Change

Confused Strategies

1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria

Effects on the Conflict

Outcomes

2. Sample of Projects

4. Research Hypotheses and Themes

3. Conflict Analysis


Reasons for the weakening of theories of change strategies as reference

Reasons for the Weakening of Theories of Change & Strategies as Reference

  • 1. Seizing Opportunities

  • Implementation requires a response to constraints and opportunities as they arise.

  • These cannot be planned for in advance so plans and objectives are not a good evaluation point of reference

  • 2. Compartmentalisation

  • Too many levels and too many instruments to carry out an analysis

  • Severe lack of documentation, issues of disclosure, many “indirect” effects.

  • 3. Problems of Reconstruction

  • Theories of Change conceived as an elicitive tool in planning

  • Retrospective interpretation opens up real chances of contested findings, with no clear data sets

  • 4. End State?

  • Problems in defining terms such as peace and conflict.

  • Usually depends on the identification of an end-state.

  • This may not be explicit or shared by all stakeholders or those within a single programme

Channel Research


The evaluative framework used for the congo evaluation3

Mandate & Steering

The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation

1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria

Effects on the Conflict

Outcomes

2. Sample of Projects

4. Research Hypotheses and Themes

Issue N° 2:

No Conflict Analyses Used,

and No Conflict Sensitivity

Analysis

3. Conflict Analysis


Day 2 presentation in oslo what have we learnt from the application phase 17 february 2011

Our understanding of

peace depends on

where we are


The evaluative framework used for the congo evaluation4

Mandate & Steering

The Evaluative Framework Used for the Congo Evaluation

1. Evaluation Questions & Criteria

Issue N° 3:

Finding the right balance

in the sample is not easy

Effects on the Conflict

Outcomes

2. Sample of Projects

4. Research Hypotheses and Themes

3. Conflict Analysis


Day 2 presentation in oslo what have we learnt from the application phase 17 february 2011

The Question of Sampling

An excessive number of projects.

A database selected before the evaluation and a great difficulty in accessing information for these projects.

Consequence:

Time spent to obtain information: 80% (to avoid focus on + transparent)

Sample may not represent the full range of interventions

Strategic dimensions were lost. Case study approach weakened.


Are we on the right track

Are We on the Right Track?

Channel Research


Evaluation communities must become more closely engaged

Evaluation Communities Must Become More Closely Engaged

Negative / Positive Change

-

+

++

- -

0

Results reporting

Regular reporting

Public workshops

Donors only

Good consultation

Theories of Change

Many field visits

Drivers based

Desk Bound

Simple Eval Questions

A Strong Steering Committee willing to arbitrate between approaches and to track the evaluation team in country(ies)

Key factor A

A highly structured approach with detailed phasing and willingness to communicate

Key factor B

Resource Conscious

Steering Committee

5

Engagement

Public Uptake

- -

++

1

Internal &

Static Conflict Analysis

Channel Research


Day 2 presentation in oslo what have we learnt from the application phase 17 february 2011

Specific Recommendation for the Final Guidance: Recommend Care in 3 Key Stages and Outline Unique Nature of Conflict Interventions

Drawing Conclusions

Outcome to Factors

Optimal

scenario

Case Studies

Conflict Analysis

Sequencing

Channel Research


Day 2 presentation in oslo what have we learnt from the application phase 17 february 2011

Specific Recommendation for the Final Guidance: Recommend Care in 3 Key Stages and Outline Unique Nature of Conflict Interventions

Drawing Conclusions

Outcome to Factors

Optimal

scenario

Case Studies

Conflict Analysis

Conflict analysis must precede sampling

Sequencing

ToR

Preparation

Collection

Analysis

Channel Research


  • Login