Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Participatory Assessment of Development (PADEV)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Participatory Assessment of Development (PADEV)

495
views

Published on

A presentation about INSIGHTS IN COMPLEXITY, Possibilities for scaling –up a bottom-up evaluation approach given by Ton Dietz on 15 September 2010

A presentation about INSIGHTS IN COMPLEXITY, Possibilities for scaling –up a bottom-up evaluation approach given by Ton Dietz on 15 September 2010


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
495
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Opening slide. This slide can be used before the presentation starts
  • Picture has NGO perspective, but is roughly similar for government or other programs
  • With every click reality becomes more complex. 1 – 1 NGO (or government, etc.) often has more interacting projects and programs 2 – and there are other development actors, with other intervention chains to backdonors 3 – and still other actors 4 – and the community is not so uniform at all 5 – and don’t forget the external influences 6 – in the different livelihood domains And: all this is just a snapshot. In reality, all relations keep changing over time.
  • Project takes the local complex web of relations as departure point. Each set of relations is seen with historical depth: attention for developments over a time of 25 – 30 years.
  • Quickly some basic information about the workshops
  • Quickly page through these 5 pictures, just to give an impression Much work in sub-groups -Local reconstruction of history: old faces represent long memories -Gendered groups -Feed back in bigger groups
  • -Feed back in bigger groups
  • -Gendered groups
  • This slide is a very short summary of the workshop contents for three days
  • Transcript

    • 1. PADEV PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT African partners: University of Development Studies (Tamale, Ghana) Expertise pour le Développement du Sahel (Burkina Faso)
    • 2. Usual perspective backdonor INGO NGO Project a in community x September 15, 2010
      • Activities
      • Results
        • Outputs
        • Outcomes
        • Impact
      • PM&E
    • 3. Community x Very poor – poor – average – rich – very rich Project c Project b backdonor INGO NGO 1 Project a Local initiatives Community x Individual initiatives WHILE IN PRACTICE …… Local influences National influences Global influences Natural Physical Economic Human Social Political Cultural Project c Project b NGO 2 Project a Project c Project b NGO 3 Project a Private initiatives
      • Government
      • Local
      • State
      • National
      Companies (e.g. telecom) Other INGO’s Other backdonors
    • 4. Methodology History History History Community x Very poor – poor – average – rich – very rich Projects Actors Changes in context September 15, 2010
    • 5. 3 day workshops
      • 50-60 people from area of 20,000-50,000
      • Subgroups: men, women, old, young, centre-hamlets (officials and project staff separate group)
      • 4 rounds of 3 workshops each (3 x 3 workshops concluded)
      September 15, 2010
    • 6. September 15 2010 1 st round 2008: Langbinsi Sandema Tô
    • 7. September 15, 2010 2d round 2009 Lasia Toulo Nandom Silly
    • 8. September 15, 2010 3d round 2010 Wulensi Daboya Niaburi
    • 9. 9 6 3 2 1 7 8 5 4 1 Langbinsi 2 Sandema 3 Tô 4 Lasia Toulo 5 Nandom 6 Silly 7 Wulensi 8 Daboya 9 Niaburi
    • 10. September 15, 2010 And with eight student thesis projects
    • 11. September 15, 2010 And three special assignments 1.Islamic NGOs 2. PADEV with the Poor 3 Internal Criticism
    • 12. Contents of workshop
      • Toolbox of 10 modules with exercises:
      • Context: shocks, trends (6 “capitals & capabilities”), wealth classes
      • Interventions: inventory (by actor, sector, years) + valuation + attribution
      • 5 best / worst interventions: in depth exercises:
        • Shift in perception over time
        • Effects on wealth classes and capitals
      September 15, 2010
    • 13. Module 1
      • Historical profile using different sets of memories: specific groups!
      • On historical literacy and oral cultures
      • Sharing information or not: cultures of silence
    • 14. Module 2: Changes in capitals and capabilities
      • Six domains of “capitals”: the importance of concepts and hence language
      • Comparing Past and Present
      • Prompting or not
      • Positive changes and negative changes (or both) and selecting the ‘major trends’
      • Time Keeping of the exercise
    • 15. Module 3: Wealth Classification
      • Local words for wealth/poverty classes
      • Number of classes
      • Local attributes per wealth category
        • Visibles
        • Invisibles
        • Rituals
      • Free and then prompted
      • Distribution (‘twenty stone method’)
      • Compilation
    • 16. Example: Wealth categories and bottom-up criteria
    • 17. Module 4
      • List of development initiatives, and labels for ‘sectors’ and for ‘types of agencies’
      • ‘ Mapping’
      • Avoiding tensions
      • Officials separate!!!
      • Checking the lists! Generic-specific
      • First m+f; then m / f
      • Perceived usefulness/effectiveness: categories!!!! -- - 0 # +/- + ++
      • Intentions: scale and reach!
      • Not: efficiency assessment!
      • Perceived impact on capabilities 1-6
      • Accuracy….
    • 18. Example of Numbers of Projects
    • 19. Module 5
      • Relating trends and interventions
      • Perceived attribution
      • Based on dominant trends (+ and -)
      • Which initiatives stimulated the most important positive trends and which mitigated the most important negative trends
      • Take care: people also tend to link negative trends to disliked projects/agencies
      • Probing for specificity of causes/initiatives
    • 20. Module 6
      • Selection of best and worst initiatives
      • 5+ and 5- per subgroup
      • In case of 6 groups (e.g. officials, market place, NSWE villages): some overlap, but also widely different choices, and sometimes contradictions.
      • Take care: ‘worst initiatives’ can be emotional and sensitive; dealing with shame…. takes time.
      • Accuracy!!!
      • And what to do with ‘new facts’…
    • 21. Example of findings
    • 22. Module 7
      • Historical assessment of best and worst initiatives:
      • Ideas about the initiative in its early stages
      • Assessment about the impact at present
      • Details of reporting! Stories…How to report on struggle and emotions…
      • Why do people see initiatives as ‘worst’: not only bad results; often: gap between expectations (raised) and promises not fulfilled. In some cases: really stimulated a trend that is locally now being regarded as (very) negative.
    • 23. Module 8
      • Impact of best and worst initiatives on wealth classes
      • Based on summary wealth class profile
      • Five circles and ten stones
      • Then and now
      • Who benefitted most
      • Who suffered most
      • Emotional encounters
      • Role of facilitator assisting negotiated outcomes without influencing…
      • Report: also about the process
    • 24. Example of impact on wealth classes
    • 25. Module 9
      • Evaluation of judgment criteria
      • Take one best and one worst project
      • First free: what made an initiative so good/so bad?
      • Then checklist of pre-determined possible reasons
      • Stones again for priorities.
    • 26. Module 10
      • Personal files and information about family members:
      • Parents
      • Children
      • Siblings
      • 50 interviews: information about 500+ relatives
    • 27. Methodological hitches
      • Goal: holistic, long-term; research or evaluation?
      • Scale
      • Organization/logistics
      • Venue
      • Timing
      • Who participates: representation/voice
      • The religious factor
      • The language factor
    • 28. Next:
      • Comments on the pros and cons of the approach by an insider: Roger Bymolt (MSc student IDS UvA)
      • Findings of a special research assignment: focussing on the (very)poor: by Agnieszka Kazimierczuk (former MSc student IDS UvA)