1 / 13

Qualitative M&E in the ‘Real World’

Qualitative M&E in the ‘Real World’. Carol J. Pierce Colfer Center for International Forestry Research & Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development. What Follows:. Why do qualitative M&E? Three Examples of M&E in action: Quilcene , WA, educational research

tao
Download Presentation

Qualitative M&E in the ‘Real World’

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Qualitative M&E in the ‘Real World’ Carol J. Pierce Colfer Center for International Forestry Research & Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development

  2. What Follows: • Why do qualitative M&E? • Three Examples of M&E in action: • Quilcene, WA, educational research • Global comparative research on assessment of sustainable forest management • Global comparative action research with local communities • Some Dangers and Conclusions

  3. Why Qualitative M&E? • Need for holistic understanding of a situation & how it has changed. • An unexpected finding emerged that hadn’t been measured initially. • An external, post-facto analysis is demanded, on issues not initially assessed. • The team has qualitative, not quantitative skills.

  4. 1a: Qualitative Ethnographic M&E [Typically] involves • Participant observation • Long term residence in the research context • A holistic, inductive, open-ended orientation • Varying degrees of independence from project being evaluated

  5. 1b: Rural Experimental Schools Project(National Institute of Education) • 10 US rural schools, given grants to experiment with their local schools • External, long term M&E, both qualitative (fieldwork) & quantitative (cross-site) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Field researchers lived in communities for ~3 years, documenting what happened and helping with cross-site studies – teasing out what went right, what went wrong.

  6. 2a: Criteria & Indicators (C&I) A central idea has been that C&I can be used to monitor, assess, & even define a subject of interest. Hierarchy of Principles, Criteria, Indicators, Verifiers Ideal ones are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely) BUT some topics are difficult (impossible?) to quantify:

  7. 2b: Governance Issues to Monitor(Landscape Mosaics) • Greater self-confidence among women & other marginalized groups • Improved knowledge of regulations among groups previously uninvolved • Involvement in enforcing sanctions, by a broader spectrum of stakeholders • Closer links between communities & outsiders (government officials, industry, projects, academics)

  8. 2c: C&I for Sustainable Forest Management ++ (CIFOR) Aim was to develop widely agreed-upon C&I to define SFM, & for use in monitoring & assessing it (initially, in certification of timber). Series of 1-month, interdisciplinary, international field visits to compare & hone existing sets of C&I that would work in each country studied, using a series of filtering steps (described in CIFOR Toolbox No. 1).

  9. 3a: Adaptive Collaborative Management A long term, learning-based approach involving (facilitated) community groups • identifying shared, future goals • Analyzing, planning, & implementing what is needed to reach those goals • Monitoring progress & revising plans accordingly • Linking productively with relevant external actors

  10. 3b: Adaptive Collaborative Management (CIFOR) Facilitator/researchers worked with communities in 11+ countries (vertically, horizontally & iteratively) Teams assessed community progress in ways that worked in their contexts: • C&I that local people developed • repeated ‘reflection’ meetings • use of ethnographic observations

  11. 3c: Adaptive Collaborative Management (CIFOR) – a tricky component • Ongoing M&E by community members – are we reaching our community/group goals? • M&E by researcher/facilitators---to what degree is ACM actually empowering, enriching people, &/or enhancing their well being or environments? • Result: A complicated life for researcher/facilitators; a qualitative, cross-site assessment, examining/comparing site experiences (7 dimension framework)

  12. Some M&E Dangers • Getting too complex - e.g., Landscape Mosaic project’s 4 levels of monitoring • Producing something so holistic, ‘deep’ and long that no one will ever read it (cf. quantitative baseline surveys so long & complex that data never get entered, let alone analyzed). • [as with any method] Being swayed by your own ideological biases, or someone’s (donors’, employers’) desire for evidence of success

  13. My Own Conclusions • Conducting qualitative M&E can be an uphill battle – donors, policymakers, & many researchers prefer quantitative assessments BUT • Qualitative M&E can often provide valuable insights, unexpected findings, not available with conventional quantitative approaches. IDEALLY: Combine the two!

More Related