ArticlePDF Available

Monitoring and Evaluation of African Women in Agricultural Research Development (AWARD): An Exemplar of Managing for Impact in Development Evaluation.



In this Exemplars case, the fifth and final under the direction of the current coeditors, we present a reflective account of an ongoing, complex, multiyear, multinational monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system conducted for African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD), an international development program. The program provides African female scientists in agriculture with professional development intended to influence the agriculture sector, and the M&E system supports a managing for impact approach to bring about change in individuals and groups in the short term and in institutions and the agricultural sector in the long term. The preparation and writing of the case was a collaborative effort of the four authors. As in the four most recent Exemplars cases, we begin with a description of the program and evaluation system, followed by an amalgamation in an interview format of the extensive evaluator–editor dialogue that occurred while preparing the case. We conclude with the authors’ reflections.
Monitoring and Evaluation
of African Women in
Agricultural Research and
Development (AWARD):
An Exemplar of Managing
for Impact in
Development Evaluation
Paul R. Brandon
, Nick L. Smith
, Zenda Ofir
and Marco Noordeloos
development evaluation, monitoring and evaluation, Africa, women in agriculture, theory of
In this Exemplars case, the fifth and final under the direction of the current coeditors, we present
a reflective account of an ongoing, complex, multiyear, multinational monitoring and evalua-
tion (M&E) system conducted f or African Women in Agricultural Research and Development
(AWARD), an international development program. The program provides A frican female
scientists in agriculture with professional development intended to influence the agriculture
sector, and the M&E system supports a managing for impact approach to bring about change
in individuals and groups in the short term and in institutions and the agricultural sector in the
long term.
The preparation and writing of the case was a collaborative effort of the four authors. As in
the four most recent Exemplars cases, we begin with a description of the program and evalua-
tion system, followed by an amalgamation in an interview format of the extensive evaluator–
editor dialogue that occurred while preparing the case. We conclude with the authors’
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Wallenberg Research Centre at Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch,
South Africa
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development, Nairobi, Kenya
Corresponding Author:
Paul R. Brandon, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1776 University Avenue, UHS2-214, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
American Journal of Evaluation
2014, Vol. 35(1) 128-143
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/1098214013509876
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Program Description
Rationale and Purpose
Women farmers play an essential role in African agriculture, doing much of the work to produce,
process, and market food (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011).
AWARD’s benchmarking research across 125 institutions of agricultural research and higher edu-
cation showed, however, that fewer than one in four professionals are women and that fewer than
one in seven of those holding management positions are women (Beintema & Di Marcantonio,
2010). Thus, in recent years, there have been numerous calls for increased leadership roles for
women in the African agriculture sector (e.g., Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, 2006; The
World Bank, 2009).
To help deal with this issue, AWARD was established to provide career development to top
African women scientists, so that they can contribute to poverty alleviation and food security at all
levels of the agriculture sector and to strengthen the voice of African women in agriculture (the
fellows served by the program) on the farm, in laboratories, in markets, and in policy forums. At the
foundation of AWARD is the belief that skilled women leaders are able to offer different and essen-
tial insights on the priorities and approaches needed in African agriculture (AWARD, 2009). The
program’s two primary objectives are to (a) equip women to increase their contributions to African
agricultural research and development by making them technically stronger, better networked, and
more confident and visible; and (b) close the gaps in information and knowledge about African
women in agricultural research and development through research, ‘vigorous monitoring, evalua-
tion and impact assessment,’ and training (AWARD, 2010, p. 21). The program is built on the
notion that the challenges of small-scale farming require scientific innovation and a new type of
leadership at all levels of the sector. It is one of few programs in Africa to emphasize equally the
further empowerment of well-educated women and the systematic cultivation of new knowledge for
the benefit of the sector and for the development and evaluation communities. The achievements of
its fellows can also encourage the agricultural research and development sector to be more respon-
sive to the needs and contributions of women.
AWARD offers 2-year fellowship packages to women with bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral
degrees. It applies no age limits and tailors the fellowships to the needs of the participants. The
demand for AWARD fellowships has been substantially increasing since the program’s inception.
From 2008 through 2013, AWARD received applications from 3,502 women scientists in some
500 organizations, who competed for a total of 390 available fellowships allocated in cohorts of
60 to 70 per year.
The program was initiated after a 3-year pilot project in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, funded by
the Rockefeller Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Drawing
from lessons learned during the pilot project, an expanded, 5-year program was launched in 9 (later
11) Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa countries in 2008, supported by approximately US$18 million
from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID. Supplemental funding was later provided
by the Agropolis Foundation and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. The program has
completed its first 5-year phase and was awarded US$22 million for a second 5-year phase starting
in 2013. A pilot project offering fellowships to nationals from Francophone Africa has also started
during the current year.
Management and Participants
A 13-member steering committee with geographic representation from key partners on the conti-
nent, funding agencies, and fellows’ institutions oversees AWARD. The steering committee formed
an M&E subcommittee to provide periodic advice and guidance in internal M&E discussions. The
Brandon et al. 129
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
program is implemented by a management team of 14 people located in Nairobi, Kenya. The team
implements more than 25 training, monitoring, and learning events a year, supported by 22 African
trainers who, as part of AWARD’s commitment to ensuring sustained benefits on the continent, have
taken over all activities in AWARD from the international trainers who were initially engaged.
Since 2008, AWARD has served 320 fellows (with another 70 selected in 2013 as of the writing
of this article) from widely differing contexts—42% from universities, 36% from agricultural
research institutes, 13% from government, 8% from nonprofit or humanitarian agencies, and 2%
from the private sector (adding to 101% due to rounding error). Some of the fellows grew up in
remote villages; others are from major cities. They range from recent bachelor’s graduates to recog-
nized experts in senior management and leadership positions. The youngest fellow to date has been
22 years old, and the oldest 58. About 65% are mothers at the start of the fellowship, with 31% hav-
ing at least one child under the age of 5 years. The program provides baby and nanny support during
its training and workshop events.
The AWARD developers designed the program to help ensure that, in addition to the fellows,
there are others who can gain from the program, with the intent to create a multiplier effect. Each
fellow is matched with a carefully chosen mentor—a senior scientist or leader in a university or
research organization—who also participates in AWARD’s capacity-strengthening activities.
Furthermore, AWARD fellows ‘share forward’ during their second year by mentoring junior
women scientists, called fellows’ mentees, and conducting role-modeling events. When considering
all fellows, mentors, and fellows’ mentees to date, AWARD has directly engaged with 715 scientists
in nearly 20 countries. Through its implementation, the program is linked to approximately 200
organizations in Africa, including leading agricultural research and development institutes, univer-
sities, science laboratories, and companies. In addition, more than 26,000 people, primarily female
high school students, have been reached through role-modeling events by AWARD fellows. The
program has also received considerable attention in the news media, as shown by a lengthy list of
news items on its website (AWARD, 2013).
Program Components
Since the beginning, the program has included three key components or cornerstones. The first,
Fostering Mentoring Partnerships, provides (a) a 5-day mentoring workshop for the fellow–mentor
pairs, tailored for an African context while drawing from international experience; (b) monthly men-
toring meetings for a year; and (c) an opportunity to mentor a junior woman scientist of the fellow’s
choice during the second year of the fellowship. The mentors are senior male and female scientists or
leaders in the sector. Each fellow is required to prepare with her mentor a purpose roadmap describing
her vision for her life and career future, thus helping to direct the mentors’ guidance. The second com-
ponent, Developing Leadership Capacity, is a leadership course, also tested internationally and tailored
to the African context, that provides intensive training to the post-bachelor fellows for 5 days and to the
post-master’s and postdoctoral fellows for 7 days in interpersonal skills (focusing on personalities,
styles, gender, and other diversities), communication skills, conflict management, and strategies to
influence and build alliances. In addition, AWARD provides support to enable fellows to hold
‘role-modeling events’ in schools, organizations, or communities. Some are also given an opportunity
to represent AWARD at national, regional, or international events. The third component, Building Sci-
ence Skills, provides a menu of options depending on need, including a laptop computer and Internet
service, membership in a professional association, attendance at a science conference, a course in sci-
ence writing for publication or fund-raising, a short course in gender-responsive agricultural research,
and a highly competitive opportunity to undergo advanced science training over several months in an
advanced research organization on the continent and around the world. Some of these elements were
adjusted for the second phase, based on lessons learned during the first.
130 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Monitoring and evaluation. Beginning with its second phase, a fourth component, Monitoring and Eval-
uation, has had equal status with the other three. The component reflects the program’s focus on
managing for impact (Guijt & Woodhill, 2002), rather than only measuring impact. It therefore
stresses adaptive management—an approach emphasizing timely adjustments as contexts change,
new information emerges, and weaknesses or gaps in program design or implementation are encoun-
tered—as well as accruing knowledge useful for the long term. The M&E system shifts attention
from a simple primary preoccupation with achieving immediate or long-term impacts to promoting
approaches, processes, and systems that are likely to achieve, enhance, and sustain positive impacts,
both during program execution and after it has been terminated. It also requires that primary stake-
holders have a feeling of ownership of the M&E and that program participants understand its value.
The M&E system thus addresses and challenges (a) a reductionist approach to development evalua-
tion and obsession with measuring impact; (b) the widespread overemphasis on accountability,
reporting, and control; and (c) the notion that outcomes and impacts are largely linear and predict-
able. (We use the word outcomes for short-term and intermediate effects and impacts for long-term
sector or societal effects.) It also addresses the need for gathering knowledge that can help
strengthen management and scaling towards sustained positive impacts.
In its pilot phase, AWARD had experienced the consequences of the inadequate data about
women in agricultural research and development that had been collected for many years before the
program began. The management team had a strong sense from the pilot experience about the value
of collecting useful data. This experience was part of the foundation for the program’s core objective
to close the gaps in information and knowledge about African women in agricultural research and
development, as well as part of the reason why funding agencies supported M&E generously with
about 11% of the AWARD budget—a percentage at the high end of the range of allocations for mon-
itoring and evaluation of development evaluations.
Development of the M&E system. At its inaugural Phase I meeting in 2008, the AWARD steering com-
mittee opted for an evaluation approach that was rigorous, use-focused, and guided by a set of prin-
ciples that stated, among others, that the M&E activities were to be useful multidirectionally, not
only to address the accountability requirements of funders but also for continuous program improve-
ment and knowledge generation. Empowering the African stakeholders was its first priority. Stake-
holders were considered to be in three groups: primary stakeholders, including the AWARD team
and its implementing partners (e.g., trainers), the program steering committee, program funders, and
fellows; secondary stakeholders, including mentors, fellows’ mentees, and the participating institu-
tions; and tertiary stakeholders who, although not program participants, are the funders, designers,
and implementers of other fellowship, mentoring, science, and leadership policies and strategies, as
well as communities of practice (e.g., M&E or gender in agriculture) with such priorities. The guid-
ing principles specified, among others, that the M&E system would
1. apply appropriate and innovative methods rigorously for timely and credible results. Stake-
holder perceptions and insights would be respected, and stakeholders would be engaged in
setting up the system, with systematic triangulation helping to ensure credible data and
2. be cognizant of the complexity of the program, with an open-systems perspective to allow
insights into interactions, both predictable and unpredictable, among the interventions and
the different contexts.
3. build useful knowledge by trying to understand why, how, for whom, and under what circum-
stances the program operates effectively. What makes for success or failure would, within the
limitations of this type of program, be as important as determining outcomes and impacts.
Brandon et al. 131
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4. be efficient. Data and information would be available when needed, efficiently delivered in
formats that speak to different audiences, and used for ongoing incremental and strategic
adjustments to the program design and implementation, as well as for scaling up.
An initial effort in 2008 to have a consulting firm use outcome mapping to help the first round of
fellows identify expected changes was unsuccessful. With the appointment in 2009 of an M&E coor-
dinator in the program team (replaced in 2011 by the fourth author), assisted by a part-time external
evaluation advisor acting as an internal evaluator (the third author), a renewed effort was made to
establish a working M&E system. The program design, the evaluation of the pilot project, and the
evaluations of similar programs together provided enough substance for a credible theory of change,
but this top-down logic had to be complemented by program participants’ bottom-up insights of
expected changes. A consultative process with fellows, mentors, and the program team led to a com-
prehensive results framework that spelled out short-term, intermediate, and long-term impacts at the
individual, organizational, and sector levels, complemented by a set of detailed assumptions. The
results were not seen as appearing in a linear fashion but organized in a sphere of control, sphere
of influence, and sphere of interest—outcome mapping concepts that gave a sense of progression
while providing for feedback loops and complicated connections among change pathways. All
impact pathways were not predicted, as it was seen as important to allow for and track emergent
developments. The M&E system was to help confirm those pathways most critical for success,
clarify the interconnectedness of the different program interventions where such pathways were
difficult to predict, try to identify tipping points, and highlight the role of external contributions
to change. It also studies whether transformative change is being achieved. An empowerment model
in the literature (Rowlands, 1997; Solava & Alkire, 2007; VeneKlasen & Miller, 2007) was later
adapted for AWARD’s focus on leadership in science. It matched almost perfectly the changes
fellows were predicted to experience, thus further strengthening the change hypothesis.
The innovative combination of M&E system elements is unusual in development evaluation in
three primary ways. First, it uses a credible, though partial, theory of change founded on stakeholder
insights, several available evaluations of leadership programs (Center for Creative Leadership,
2007), an empowerment model from the literature, and a program design based on the study of pre-
vious programs of a similar nature. It can be used to guide monitoring and for deductive analysis and
learning, yet also allows inductive analysis and for identifying unpredictable patterns, using prac-
tices similar to developmental evaluation. Second, the system provides for extensive monitoring,
self-evaluation, and internal evaluation of the design, implementation, and emerging program
effects, drawing from successes and mistakes, while also focusing on frequently neglected aspects
such as transformation and sustainability. Longitudinal tracking is to be established in Phase II. It
also provides for external, possibly independent, evaluation. Special evaluative studies on topics
such as social return on investment, institutional change, and sustainability are to be conducted.
An external summative evaluation will be conducted at the end of Phase II. Third, the system uses
a variety of mixed methods to collect rich data and a variety of methods for systematically analyzing
the data. The evaluators are using aspects of realistic evaluation (Pawson & Tilley, 1997) and
contribution analysis (Mayne, 2011; Stern et al., 2012; White & Phillips, 2012) for tracing causal
pathways from the individual to the sector level. The data are examined for unintended—especially
negative—consequences, as part of a focus on how best to enable and sustain program ideas and
impacts. Furthermore, the analyses will focus on connections between change and context, using
up to 13 variables for fellows, as well as studies at organizational and national levels. To ensure
systematic reporting of findings, the M&E team synthesizes in a set of brief summaries all analyzed
data and information as they emerge, organized by topic for planning, improving, reporting, or shar-
ing further. The findings are intended to assist in both operational and strategic decision making on
an ongoing basis, such as when they were used to inform the design of AWARD Phase II.
132 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The M&E team. The AWARD leadership made a major effort to ensure that the responsibility for
monitoring and evaluation was not only carried by the M&E Coordinator, but by the program team
as a whole. However, as a result of team members’ heavy workload and capacity constraints in the
initial phase of the program, this did not always work well, and a significant amount of data analysis
had to be outsourced during the first phase of the program. In November 2008, an independent eva-
luation specialist, the third author—who had done the evaluation of a pilot program in 2007 that led
to AWARD—was officially appointed as an M&E advisor to the AWARD steering committee.
Since October 2009, she has frequently played the role of a part-time internal evaluator, initially
guiding the theory of change and M&E system development and later engaging in some of the more
substantive data analyses. Staffing changes eventually led to a stronger internal M&E team, with a
more senior M&E Coordinator (the fourth author) supported by an M&E Officer and two program
assistants. Since 2012, they have taken over much of the internal evaluator’s role.
Instruments and data collection. The M&E team developed the data collection instruments with input
from the program team and participants. Data collection focuses on the quality and quantity of
implementation progress and on expected and unexpected outcomes and impacts. The frequency
of data collection is determined by the nature and use of the data. Implementation data are collected
immediately after activities or events, and descriptive data, progress data, and achievement data are
collected at the beginning, after 1 year, and at the end of the 2-year fellowship. Special studies are
conducted when needed. Long-term longitudinal data tracking of the first and subsequent rounds of
fellows began in 2013; its implementation was slower than expected. Findings are documented in a
series of brief reports and updated as new data become available. They are intended to serve as a
basis for communication in different formats for different purposes and audiences; their formats are
currently being improved, with better use of interactive online techniques.
The large number of data sources available from fellows includes their curriculum vitae and
application forms, baseline and progress journals, course and event evaluations, contributions to
progress monitoring meetings, e-mail messages, and impact stories prepared by the fellows. These
are complemented by mentors’ and fellow mentees’ reports about the changes they have experi-
enced, as well as those they have observed in fellows; component leader and team reflection session
records; dashboard tracking of milestone achievement; and rare external stakeholder surveys.
The M&E team triangulates reports among accounts of the fellows, the mentors, and the fellows’
mentees and also during case studies with others who are at arm’s length from the program.
Analysis and use of evaluation results. The steering committee used the findings at the end of the first
phase of the program to make some fairly important modifications in the proposal that they
submitted for Phase II. In addition, they used the results as part of the adaptive management of the
program. The M&E findings have also fostered reflection and discussion within the management
team—not only when producing the year-end program review but also in near-real time. One exam-
ple is that the program revised its fellowship package for post-bachelor’s fellows, as it learned
through M&E data that its assumptions about the practical context and needs were not accurate
(e.g., a number of post-bachelors fellows did not match the ‘junior researcher’ profile but were
actually heading a lab or research department). A second example is a renewed and enriched under-
standing of the mentoring process. Through comprehensive analysis of mentoring-related M&E
data, the program found, for example, that the male and female mentors were equally effective (for
the female fellows) and that the second year of mentoring was not nearly as effective as the first. As a
result of these and related findings, in Phase II, AWARD dropped the second year of the post-
bachelors fellows’ mentoring and provided additional incentives for male mentors to serve in the
program. Third, fellowship application forms have provided not only a means of selecting partici-
pants but also have become a valuable piece in the M&E system. To date, the program has more
Brandon et al. 133
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
than 3,000 vitae on file that comprise a data set offering many different research and evaluation
angles. Furthermore, the program receives frequent requests from agricultural organizations, donor
agencies, and their partners about snippets of the evaluation results about who has done certain
things and who has shown progress. The first round of analysis of M&E data provided the foundation
with a refined understanding of the AWARD fellows and their specific contexts. Since 2012,
AWARD has used a much more refined matrix of an in-country talent pool to guide its selection
process. Finally, knowledge has been developed about the factors affecting success, the change
logic, and the synergistic effects of the program. With more work in Phase II on the interaction with
context, the management team expects that transfer to other contexts will be easier.
The M&E team does not see monitoring and evaluation as one-way traffic to stakeholders.
Instead, they promote an interactive process of engagement that, when feasible, uses the mentors,
fellows, and fellows’ mentees to help interpret unclear findings. This has been a challenge. Initial
difficulties with ineffective data collection systems, data gaps, and insufficient capacities and time
to conduct such processes effectively stymied such efforts, yet also provided significant lessons on
how to do this better. Consequently, not all needs of all stakeholder groups could be addressed dur-
ing the first phase. The M&E team is structuring the annual monitoring meetings to be much more
useful to the participants and hopes to motivate the newly formed AWARD alumnae network to
engage with analysis and interpretation. During Phase II there will also be a much stronger effort
to disseminate new insights in innovative ways.
Editors: To what extent is using a detailed theory of change unusual for evaluations in developing
Evaluators: When we started in 2009, it was still uncommon, certainly in terms of how we have
been using it. Around that time, the Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation (NONIE) and the
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, commonly known as 3ie, started to promote theory-
based impact evaluation. This gave it a higher profile. Unfortunately, theories of change are still
mostly being used for control in development initiatives. They tend to be unsophisticated and have
become prescriptive rather than evolving with implementation. In recent years, there have been seri-
ous critiques of the frequent misuse of the log frame approach (LFA) in development planning and
evaluation. Hummelbrunner (2010) quite rightly refers to it as ‘logic-less frame,’ ‘lack-frame,’
and ‘lock-frame.’ He notes that the LFA often fails to reflect development’s ‘messy realities,’
something with which we heartily concur. We find that logframes are primarily done for donors dur-
ing the proposal phase and then put on a shelf until reporting time, when everyone runs around trying
to count many things that are supposed to be entered into a few columns in a table.
Editors: Has your use of a theory of change met your expectations?
Evaluators: It has exceeded our expectations. M&E should enlighten stakeholders and generate
useful knowledge about development. A theory of change approach is one way to ensure this while
also giving direction to the program implementers. We have tried to balance a deductive and induc-
tive approach, because we wanted to be rigorous and systematic by connecting upfront planning and
clarity of direction, yet allow for emergence.
AWARD is an integrated, complicated program, with different interventions expected to contrib-
ute to a large number of intermediate outcomes at individual and institutional levels, as well as at the
sector level. With the theory of change, we could show that AWARD is in part so successful because
each component leads to multiple changes and also enhances other components, similar to the syner-
gistic effect of different chemicals in a mixture. We believe we can use this information to show that
AWARD is more than the sum of its parts and thus a good value proposition. It is also a relatively
expensive program, so we need to determine whether all its components are necessary to achieve the
134 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
desired impact. Working with a nonlinear, quite detailed theory of change has proved to be essential
for this purpose.
The graphical display of the theory of change has been particularly helpful. There was a real ‘aha
moment’ when everyone in AWARD suddenly saw the logic of the program design clearly spelled
out through their own efforts and how the theory of change related to the outcomes and assumptions.
Another aha moment came when we found that the theory of change resonated very well with an
empowerment framework in the literature. There was almost complete overlap between this frame-
work and the changes expected at the individual level. This confirmed to us that the designers were
very experienced, very well informed by the literature, or both. In our experience, theories of change
will be much better if we draw on what is known from well-documented frameworks and
experiences. So this very nice blending of bottom-up and top-down approaches to theory of change
development greatly strengthened its credibility.
Editors: How useful are you finding your theory of change in explaining why AWARD is and is
not working?
Evaluators: We have found it to be extremely useful. We could have followed an outcome map-
ping or developmental evaluation approach without thinking in advance about the causal model. But
making it explicit has helped to guide the whole M&E system and to test it in quite a rigorous way.
One of the challenges with this type of program is that fellows enter at different stages of their
professional life and respond differently to program interventions. In spite of this, we have been able
to identify some fairly generic impact pathways and some important success factors. We can link a
specific activity to a specific set of intermediate outcomes or an outcome to several activities. We
discovered some reinforcing feedback loops and several patterns per grouping—for example, at
the post-bachelor’s, post-master’s, and postdoctoral levels. We are still working on disaggregating
the data.
Editors: You said that you found an empowerment model that was an excellent match with your
theory of change. Tell us more about the purpose of this aspect of AWARD.
Evaluators: Some months after we developed the theory of change, we came across a framework
in the literature that resonated very well with the outcomes in the theory of change, that related to
change at the individual level, and that could be readily adjusted for AWARD’s focus on leadership
in science. The framework treats empowerment as an expansion of ‘agency,’ or what people are
free and able to do and achieve in pursuit of their goals or values. It postulates that there are four
possible displays of agency that can lead to empowerment as a leader in science: ‘Power from
within’ involves a fellow’s growth in inner strength—in her willingness, confidence, and motiva-
tion to induce change in line with her own vision and values. ‘Power to do’ refers to her increasing
access to resources and capacities to progress in her professional life. ‘Power over’ involves a fel-
low’s growing ability to exercise control over professional and personal decisions, over resources,
and being better able to deal with professional or social power relations and hierarchies. ‘Power
with’ involves a fellow purposefully focusing on advocating for, and enabling change collectively
with others. When we analyzed the individual empowerment components of our theory of change,
we could fit them completely into this framework, thus strengthening their credibility. Theories of
change use too few actual theories derived from practical experience!
The theory of change provides the foundation for monitoring, reflection, and evaluation, but we
make sure it is not a ‘recipe’ or ‘template’ for data collection. So we ask a lot of open questions in
order to get a nuanced understanding of the program participants’ experiences, reactions, and rela-
tionships. We deductively and inductively analyze patterns in the rich qualitative and quantitative
information. Importantly, the theory of change helps AWARD to focus its knowledge generation;
it helps us to know what we know, what we don’t know, and what we can still know.
Editors: To what extent is the program actually using the information being provided by the
M&E system?
Brandon et al. 135
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Evaluators: This is very important. Some examples are given in the Description section. How-
ever, with all the challenges the M&E system faced, it has been difficult to serve stakeholders
beyond the program team and steering committee. The team has little time for anything beyond
immediate implementation of about 25 training events and meetings throughout Africa every year.
The program also has to achieve approximately 25 additional annual milestones, so the individual
participants’ involvement in working with the data has been less than desired. Still, they appear
to have benefited significantly from their engagement with the theory of change and M&E design
process. They continue to use the data for both strategic and operational purposes, and they complain
bitterly when information for their immediate use is not available. We are still struggling to provide
information in a timely manner and to match it with the significant data needs of the team and steer-
ing committee. We intend to get this right during the second phase.
Implementation of efforts to make M&E useful for the fellows was initially poor. Only in the last
year have the fellows started to buy in and understand its utility. M&E is not a common practice in
scientific research environments! We have developed a session with fellows and their mentors to
inspire them about the utility of credible M&E. We know it is now effective (after several less suc-
cessful efforts) because of much higher ratings for the quality of this component in the first week-
long exposure of fellows to AWARD, as well as better responses to our data collection requests. We
are also going to engage fellows and mentors through the new alumnae network and in the annual
monitoring meetings to help us understand some unclear findings. Of course, our assumption is that
when we build monitoring and self-reflection capacities, we are also strengthening the program team
and participating fellows and mentors in these much-needed skills. We are aware that this type of
approach may influence the M&E data, so we limit these engagements. There is a trade-off, but
we believe the benefits outweigh the risk.
It is worth noting that the program team is extremely committed to their work. Their engagement
and experience provide them with intuition and observation that complement the evidence. Deci-
sions are frequently not only based on external evidence, but reflect their first-hand experience as
Editors: Since you have adopted an unconventional and ambitious approach to conducting devel-
opment evaluation, no doubt you have learned a lot that might help others who adopt it. Can you tell
us any more about the difficulties and benefits of your approach?
Evaluators: Our main challenges and risks are intertwined and relate primarily to M&E capacity
and resources. A comprehensive M&E system that is realistic and locally owned, while remaining
credible and useful enough for the desired purposes, needs people with diverse capabilities. Trian-
gulation needs to be rigorous, which is difficult to achieve with limited resources. We need to mea-
sure change in a convincing manner among different cohorts of very diverse fellows from diverse
contexts. Their change trajectories can vary significantly. We still tend to skim the surface. We need
larger numbers of fellows for disaggregated data, and we need more comparative institutional case
studies to understand some of the patterns and nuances that make for success or failure in specific
contexts. Measuring the many interrelated intangible variables such as confidence, motivation, lead-
ership, and influence requires significant amounts of verifiable qualitative information. Many of the
tangible changes at the individual level, and especially at the sector level, will emerge long after
AWARD has ended. And of course, such lengthy causal pathways will be increasingly difficult
to trace through process tracing or contribution analysis, but perhaps not impossible.
We now know enough about the theory of change to focus more on the institutional and sector
level impacts. This will help limit the scope of our data collection, but also shift focus to the lon-
gitudinal data collection—with all the challenges this will entail!
Understandably, donors have a main interest in accountability which they assess through reports,
but we see that as only one of many benefits of evaluation. Fortunately, our funders agreed that we
needed to experiment with an M&E system that can serve different purposes. They placed its
136 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ownership completely in our hands but also ensure that the work we do is credible. At the same time,
we are completely transparent about our own successes and failures. Most program teams and eval-
uators do not have this luxury. Many are currently under pressure to implement impact evaluations
using conventional experimental designs that they believe are not the most appropriate or will not
yield sufficient benefits. Many of these experiences are not made public so that others can learn from
them. This means that a lot of evaluation resources are wasted.
Editors: Tell us more about these challenges—the problems that you have dealt with in the pro-
gram and what difficulties you expect to encounter as the work progresses.
Evaluators: We can talk for days about this, with many layers to unpack, but let’s summarize
those that come to mind immediately. First, there has been insufficient stable M&E capacity in the
team from the beginning. The approach is intensive and requires quite a wide set of evaluation
expertise. It is not ideal to depend upon consultants who do not ‘live with implementation.’ The
most critical consequence has been that there was insufficient attention early on to the basic systems
needed to manage all the data and information AWARD produces. If an implementation team has
never been exposed to good knowledge management systems, it’s hard for them to understand their
benefits. They need to be convinced; we are starting to do this now. We are working to embed tailor-
made systems in the day-to-day work so that we increase efficiency and effectiveness in data col-
lection, analysis, and communication.
Second, our data management, including analysis, is still largely outsourced. We are slowly
changing to more in-house work where this makes sense. We believe that even in programs of this
relatively modest size, the implementation team should have sufficient M&E expertise in-house to
do the majority of the work and control any engagement with external evaluation expertise. External
and independent evaluators and consultants should only be used for highly specialized areas of work
that offer specific challenges or for greater independence.
Third, the management team has been keen to learn, but they have been under huge time pressure,
and they haven’t been able to engage as they ideally should. This year we want to build in more
regular and active opportunities for the different primary stakeholders to engage with the M&E data.
The scientists who enter AWARD generally do not appreciate the process and value of M&E, so we
are developing innovative ways to engage them in feedback and in certain analyses. Our intent is that
they see the real value of frank self-assessment, coupled with more external and independent
evaluation. We intend using annual progress monitoring meetings for this purpose, where fellows
and mentors from several countries come together for 2 days. We also will use the alumnae network
that will soon be established.
Fourth, we are collecting a significant amount of qualitative information and analyzing it system-
atically, adding a lot to our work. It has been a challenge to prioritize collecting and analyzing man-
ageable amounts of data for a leadership and program team who want evidence for everything,
including why, how, for whom, under what conditions, and at what cost, the program works—and
what might work when scaled. So we have to try to connect the success and failure factors with con-
text. That is a challenge. Initially, we watered down our instruments to focus on selected quantitative
information, so that participants were not burdened with too much work. Later, we included more
qualitative information. So we have a very significant focus on how to make our data collection and
analysis systems more efficient.
Finally, the problem we find hardest to resolve is the integrity and utility of the data from the first
few rounds, when we were still struggling and experimenting with the best approach. Most data col-
lection systems in development evaluation struggle with credibility because people do not feel their
ownership and utility and therefore do not care about data quality. In our case, this led to gaps in
data. A still greater challenge was the fact that the key concepts were not clear and our vignettes
or rubrics were not sufficiently developed to cultivate common understanding when rating.
Definitions for terms such as ‘gender responsiveness,’ ‘innovation,’ and ‘influential’ needed
Brandon et al. 137
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to be clarified and shared early on. Fortunately, we have qualitative information that helps us assess
how some of these concepts were initially understood, but it still makes comparison with later
rounds difficult. We moved away from an initial focus on overly complex progress markers (a useful
outcome mapping concept). This further complicated comparison between rounds. We also needed
to provide structure to impact stories, which meant we ran the risk of leading participants somewhat
in their responses.
Given all these early mistakes, we might appear not to provide much of an exemplar! However,
these are challenges many programs face in the field. One could say that we have been exemplary in
acknowledging and facing them head-on, without waiting for others to point them out. In the pro-
cess, capacities have been cultivated and much has been learned. We can now share these experi-
ences with others first-hand in a systematic and detailed manner. In the end, this creates a ripple
effect, adding value to AWARD’s achievements. We are quite confident that these issues will be
resolved for the second phase, although we expect that the longitudinal tracking, which is to start
in 2013, will bring some new challenges. Our experience shows how long it can take to build and
embed the systems and capacities to serve a program well in countries where a critical mass of M&E
expertise still has to be nurtured. For us, it adds to the ongoing argument that short-term, time-bound
funding of fragmented interventions is detrimental to sustained development. We are grateful that
AWARD’s funders are supporting a decade-long journey!
Editors: You work in multiple countries and with numerous cultural groups. Have you encoun-
tered any particular ethical or cultural issues that have required special attention in the M&E work?
Evaluators: A practical issue stems from our use of extensive forms to capture participants’
impact stories and examples of progress. The emerging stories on the forms don’t always match the
rich picture one hears during interviews. This is probably a universal challenge, but perhaps even
more so in a particularly oral culture such as in sub-Saharan Africa. The positive side of this is that
our results likely underplay AWARD’s effects. We are going to try to address this issue as we move
forward in the second phase.
Another issue is that we cannot always assume that all those to whom the fellows report want the
best for the fellows. Power dynamics are at play, especially since most of these supervisors are men.
There are complicated and sometimes very sensitive issues in our work context. There’s a potential
for jealousy and backlash in an environment where significant growth opportunities like those
provided through an AWARD fellowship are scarce. We need to take this into account in our data
collection strategy, particularly when considering a context in our interpretation of M&E data. Of
course, we are very careful to keep sensitive information connected to specific individuals
We have become better at considering the specific context of each unique individual in the
AWARD program when analyzing M&E results. The starting points, cultural contexts, and personal
and professional environments are very different for different individuals. Simply aggregating par-
ticipants by year of fellowship or education level often leads to either diluted or simply misguided
conclusions. Now that we have data on a larger group of fellows, the second phase will also allow us
to do more refined analyses of the influence of both institutional and country contexts. This should
inform AWARD’s upcoming effort to adjust the program for implementation in Francophone
Editors: Finally, to round out the picture, can you say a little about how your M&E system is
different from other M&E systems in development evaluations?
Evaluators: Black-box, accountability-driven M&E remains pervasive in development evalua-
tion. In those kinds of studies, evaluators set up simplistic, rigidly held logical frameworks, or ‘log
frames.’ They tend to adopt inappropriate baselines, ignore development trajectories, and report on
a few short-term quantitative monitoring indicators with a rhetorical nod to learning. They often
examine what is easy to measure rather than what is significant for development in the long term.
138 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sometimes they ‘parachute evaluation teams into the field’ without ensuring systematic work. The
current obsession with measuring impact means that development evaluators pay scant attention to
interventions as open systems. They tend to ignore negative consequences that may outweigh pos-
itive results and do not work in a manner that enhances the long-term sustainability of ideas, insti-
tutional systems, and impacts.
We wanted to test the limits of our type of approach in practice and learn how some limitations
could be overcome. We were well aware of many of the difficulties it would bring. But if evaluation
cannot cope with complexity, we should say so and start every assignment by stating that as a caveat.
Our profession should focus on innovations that can help us tackle this issue head-on. Those trying
to deal in a pragmatic way with complexity are gaining ground but tend to be less influential. This
might be because of the inevitably scary terminology but certainly because simple, yet impressive-
sounding numbers and solutions resonate so much better with overwhelmed politicians, policy
makers, and even technocrats.
There is also a need for more examples that work from realistic evaluation or developmental eva-
luation perspectives, and we wanted to contribute to this. In developing countries, capacities and
institutions are generally much weaker and less productive than in developed countries. If such
countries are to grow, development strategies need to be comprehensive and integrated, with well
sequenced interventions, and positive results that have to be sustained over long periods. We have
to grapple with how to evaluate under these circumstances. It is imperative that we understand the
interplay between interventions and their changing, often highly unpredictable environments, and
deal with issues such as ‘transformation,’ ‘sustainability,’ and ‘resilience.’
M&E for Development Programs
AWARD’s M&E evaluation system is meant to be empowering for the implementers, participants,
decision makers, and funders. It reflects the program’s notion that empowerment for leadership in
science requires comprehensive strengthening of power in four aspects (‘‘power from within,’
‘power to do,’ ‘power over,’ and ‘power with’’), plus seeking transformative change at the orga-
nizational and sector levels. That is not to say that it is an empowerment evaluation or participatory
evaluation per se—it is empowering in the sense of cultivating ownership and understanding and
being mindful and respectful of local contexts, as well as generating knowledge for similar programs
and for development more generally.
To achieve this ownership and generate credible, useful knowledge, AWARD’s M&E system had
to develop practices addressing issues that others in the development evaluation community are
likely to encounter if implementing a similar M&E system. These practices include (a) building the
system on a set of explicit values for driving and justifying M&E designs and practices; (b) ensuring
that the utility and value of evaluation is experienced by multiple African stakeholders, so as to
counter the notion that evaluation is an externally imposed practice of little local utility; (c) building
in a direct link between planning, M&E, and the adjustment of strategy and operations; (d) present-
ing and conducting monitoring as something beyond mechanically reporting on a set of high level
indicators; (e) ensuring rigor, including thorough systematic triangulation, whenever possible; and
(f) balancing the measurement of impact with ensuring and assessing the capacities, knowledge, and
systems to manage for impact. Furthermore, with the program’s emphasis on adaptive management,
the M&E system is designed to go beyond process evaluation and to focus in an ongoing manner on
collecting and using information addressing the intended program impacts, with implications for
bringing about change across the agriculture sector and the region.
AWARD’s M&E system is intended to help bring systems and complexity thinking into evalua-
tion in practical, even if still limited, ways. The system is designed to help evaluators work with
Brandon et al. 139
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
predictable and unpredictable aspects of programs and deal with interventions as open systems. It is
necessary to connect outcomes to multiple influences and to examine the extent to which the pro-
gram components strengthen one another’s impact, thus justifying the presence of each component.
These are not trivial matters. Development practices very frequently do not yield positive results
within what are usually artificially established timeframes. Evaluators are increasingly being chal-
lenged to ensure that the profession can deliver on what is required and, in turn, significantly
improve poor aid and development practices. The AWARD M&E system does not provide an ideal
solution; its practices still need improvement and will be most relevant for selected ‘small n devel-
opment interventions. All of this draws attention to the need for much more systematic and docu-
mented work on innovations as open, complex adaptive systems. Development efforts will
increasingly need such evaluation solutions.
AWARD’s M&E Approach
The features of the AWARD evaluation system, with its use of realistic evaluation principles and
methods such as contribution analysis, stand in stark contrast to the increasing advocacy of experi-
ments and quasi-experiments to study development programs in Africa and elsewhere. Experiments
are powerful tools, but their methodological requirements (particularly the aspects necessary to
ensure internal validity) make their use limited to studying development programs with well-
defined and stable interventions, circumscribed program contexts, and a limited breadth of outcomes
that can meet psychometric requirements. They do not address issues such as program sustainability
and resilience over the long term. Furthermore, program personnel are more likely to provide
credible data if they believe in the eventual utility of the evaluation findings. The AWARD M&E
experience shows the value of developing evaluation designs that are sensitive to the locally relevant
values, cultures, and contexts.
The extensive use of a detailed nonlinear theory of change, allowing for deductive and inductive
analyses, is an exemplary aspect of the M&E system. AWARD built its theory of change through
close, iterative interaction with stakeholders and drew from existing knowledge and frameworks
to strengthen it. The theory of change has been critical in shaping the M&E system and in thinking
through findings. It has been extremely useful for adaptive management and has been at the core of
AWARD’s managing for impact approach. It has also satisfied the requirements of funding agencies
and government funders.
The AWARD M&E is built on the notion that it is short-sighted to waste resources on develop-
ment interventions without cultivating a nuanced understanding and management of the interven-
tions and their dynamic cultural and organizational contexts. The theory of change helps focus
attention on collecting evaluation data addressing causes, contexts, and mediators. The program
steering committee and the AWARD management team can use these data to make modifications
to the program and to understand more fully how to bring about the program’s intended effects. The
theory of change also is intended as a primary tool for producing knowledge about what contributes
to AWARD outcomes and impacts. The evaluation system thus values both instrumental and con-
ceptual uses of evaluation findings. It is unclear at this relatively early point that the approach will
provide knowledge applicable to a wider scale program and the elements are necessary to facilitate
this, but the M&E team will be working to clarify this during Phase II.
The M&E team admits that the long-term success of addressing complexity remains to be shown,
but to date, it appears to have been successful. The evaluators are confident that the evaluation has
shown that the program components have contributed in an integrated manner to empowerment at
the individual level and that implementation has occurred largely as intended, including with the
desired quality. They intend to focus the M&E efforts during the second phase on tracking institu-
tional and sector change and on refining their understanding of issues such as better measuring some
140 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
of the more intangible outcomes: transformative change, gender-responsiveness, innovation, and the
sustainability of AWARD’s model and ideals.
Successes and Challenges
The AWARD evaluation is well resourced (funded at about 11% of the program’s budget) and
strongly supported by the steering committee and the funders, all of which make for conditions that
allow the M&E system to have a strong and effective role in development. As a novel and ambitious
endeavor, however, it has encountered obstacles along the way, as any seasoned evaluator would
predict is likely to occur. The third and fourth authors of this Exemplars case have expanded fully
on these obstacles, resulting in a full account that we intend to be of use to other development eva-
luators adopting the approach.
The AWARD evaluation shows that M&E systems need significant evaluation expertise
embedded in an organization or program. The expertise should not come solely from external
sources. The M&E team needs to understand a spectrum of possible designs and act in internal
evaluator roles, supporting their work through occasional special studies and external or independent
evaluations. AWARD reinforces the argument that evaluation is not a simple task that ill-prepared
professionals can do.
In setting up the system, the M&E team found out who wanted to know what among the primary
stakeholders, as well as for what purpose, so that priorities could be established using a systematic
process drawing from the theory of change. The AWARD leadership was prepared to reflect on evi-
dence of both successes and mistakes, couple it to intuition and their own observations, and adjust
quickly and effectively—that is, to use adaptive management well. The M&E team has found that
the program steering committee and management team have demonstrated the value of adaptive
management and that a culture of openness about performance is imperative for success.
The M&E system is cultivating an evaluative culture among primary stakeholders by demonstrat-
ing the value of M&E as quickly as possible and has done as much as possible, within reason and
resource availability, to get priority information as rigorously as circumstances allow. It is building
M&E capacities among primary stakeholders, and most important for delivery, developing efficient
data collection and analysis systems to alleviate the burden of work. The M&E team admittedly
failed initially in every one of these efforts, but purposefully learned through each and adjusted
wherever possible.
Many of the challenges encountered by the AWARD M&E are common in complex M&E
systems serving multiple stakeholder groups. The M&E team had to deal with barriers in developing
and maintaining a wide-ranging M&E system that, to date, had limited success in serving all the
identified stakeholder groups. The M&E team also found challenges in supporting the management
team’s efforts to engage deeply all stakeholder groups in the use of evaluation findings, and it has
grappled with the value added by using consultants versus the dependency that occurs in having to
rely on external expertise.
The Future of AWARD M&E
There may be an implicit presupposition in the work reported here that at some point the AWARD
program will be reasonably stable and less dynamic and the M&E system will be static, fully inte-
grated, and sufficiently resourced. The remaining evaluation tasks then would be the continued
implementation of the M&E work. There seems a real likelihood, however, that the program may
continue to be modified and evolve and that the M&E system will also need to continue to be
modified. The M&E system may have to be as dynamic as the program itself, and the evaluation
may need to adopt an emergent, adaptive evaluation strategy—perhaps an M&E process rather than
Brandon et al. 141
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
an M&E system. Such a process may itself need to be guided by its own theory of change—a theory
of evaluation change that operates alongside the theory of program change.
Perhaps most importantly, the AWARD team seeks to know what works, why, and under what
conditions AWARD achieves its intended impacts—a tall order, and one that requires the use and
refinement of approaches such as realistic evaluation. The program theory of change is complex,
with interrelated variables, some of which are difficult to operationalize, and some of the definitions
of progress markers and the evaluation instruments need revision. These challenges are not unique to
this evaluation or program setting, however—they are familiar to any evaluator seeking to collect
substantial amounts of data and provide results in a timely manner. It will be of considerable interest
to the evaluation community to learn the extent to which and how the AWARD M&E system
successfully addresses these challenges in the years to come.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2009). Sowing success: Results report 2008/09.
Retrieved from
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2010). The theory of change of AWARD. Nairobi,
Kenya: Author.
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2012). Summary of AWARD’s M&E system.
Nairobi, Kenya: Author.
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2013). AWARD in the news. Retrieved from
Beintema, N. M., & Di Marcantonio, F. (2010). Female participation in African agricultural research and
higher education: New insights (International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper 00957).
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute/African Women in Agricultural Research
and Development.
Center for Creative Leadership. (2007). The handbook of leadership development evaluation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). The state of food and agriculture women in
agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. Retrieved form
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2006). Framework for African agricultural productivity/Cadre
pour la productivite
agricole en Afrique. Accra, Ghana: Author.
Guijt, I., & Woodhill, J. (2002). Managing for impact in rural development: A guide for project M & E. Rome,
Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Hummelbrunner, R. (2010). Beyond logframe: Critique, variations and alternatives. In N. Fujita (Ed.), Beyond
logframe; Using systems concepts in evaluation (pp. 1–34). Tokyo, Japan: Foundation for Advanced Studies
on International Development.
Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause and effect. In R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra
(Eds.), Evaluating the complex (pp. 53–96). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N., (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, England: Sage.
Rowlands, J. (1997). Questioning empowerment: Working with women in Honduras. Oxford, England: Oxfam.
142 American Journal of Evaluation 35(1)
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Solava, I., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable
indicators. OPHI Working Paper. Oxford, England: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012). Broadening the range of designs and
methods for impact evaluations (Department for International Development Working Paper 38). Retrieved
The World Bank. (2009). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. Washington, DC: Author.
VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V. (2007). A new weave of power, people & politics: The action guide for advocacy
and citizen participation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
White, H., & Phillips, D. (2012). Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact evaluations:
Towards an integrated framework (Working Paper 15). New Delhi, India: Global Development Network,
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. Retrieved from
Brandon et al. 143
by guest on February 19, 2016aje.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... For others, balance was characterized as a combination of ownership and accountability (Makgamata, 2009), rigour and involvement (Hamilton et al., 2000), empowerment and effectiveness (Kariuki & Njuki, 2013), and local knowledge and gender equity (Lawrence, Haylor, Barahona, & Meusch, 2000). Overall, we noted a strong activist and reflexive ethic, with an emphasis on cultural responsiveness (Brandon, Smith, Ofir, & Noordeloos, 2014;Chinyowa, 2011) and an ongoing critique of Western, positivist approaches to knowledge creation (Laperrierre, 2006). Participatory and collaborative practices were positioned not as technical solutions but as a political means for addressing social, economic, cultural and historical exigencies of international development practice. ...
... In these cases, technical concerns about data and analytical quality were important influences on selection planning, but political considerations were also evident with evaluators aiming to ensure that not just those with power, authority or the loudest voices would be included. Other considerations included selection criteria based on geographic representation (Brandon et al., 2014), with different stakeholder groups identified at different phases of the evaluation and for different purposes. Cornwall (2014) carried out a stakeholder analysis using an adapted Venn Diagram for institutional and relationship mapping to ensure that everyone would have a voice. ...
... In one example, Bagamoyo College of Arts, Tanzania Theatre Centre, Mabala, & Allen, (2002) planned for gender balance in the recruitment of young people to serve as "artist/researchers" in a popular theatre project to educate community members on HIV/AIDS in Tanzania. In another example in the African context, Brandon et al. (2014) discussed how they aimed to recruit female scientists into the evaluation process of an agriculture program because women scientists were vastly under-represented in the agricultural workforce. Gender played a role in selection planning at more granular levels as well, with evaluators holding women only meetings or workshops to ensure women would have a voice in the evaluation findings and processes and a chance to develop their own capabilities (e.g., Crishna, 2006;Kariuki & Njuki, 2013;Symes & Jasser, 2000). ...
The inclusion of stakeholders in participatory evaluation in highly diverse, culturally complex settings remains a challenge, given issues of inequity, power, voice, capacity and skill. These challenges are well documented, but there is a relative absence of papers devoted to addressing them based on examples and evidence. In this paper, we report our review of 51 empirical studies of participatory evaluations conducted in the international domain, focusing on the methods of inclusion used in the evaluations. Our findings address “the who” (which stakeholders are included and which excluded), “the why” (rationales for participation) and “the how” (by what means and in what manner) of inclusion. We were struck by the scale of some development programs, geographically and in terms of the number of diverse program sponsors and stakeholders, and how this necessitated highly creative, innovative participatory techniques to ensure that anyone (and in some cases everyone) could have a voice in the process, regardless of location, language ability, privilege, power, gender, age or culture. For full text access use this link (until Jan 31, 2018)
... A rough indicator of how important rubrics were to each publication is the number of times the word rubric appeared in the article. The frequency of use ranged from 1 time in a single article (Brandon, Smith, Ofir, & Noordeloos, 2014;Braverman, 2013;Petersen, 2002;Roberts-Gray, Gingiss, & Boerm, 2007) to 133 times in a single article (King, McKegg, Oakden, & Wehipeihana, 2013). Figure 8 shows a substantial increase since 2004 in both the number of times the term rubric was used in individual articles (blue line) and the dispersion of the 20 articles contained in this study (red line). ...
... For example, Clements (2012) used a rubric to transform observational and interview data into numerical codes during data collection, then to analyze the data to show the level of change between reconstructed baseline and current functioning, and to synthesize the data into evaluative claims. 4 I found that rubrics used in early study phases were more often used to transform data from one form to another, such as to transform observations in the field (visual data) into written codes (e.g., Brandon et al., 2014;Clements, 2012). Predominately, rubrics in the reviewed articles were used in the data collection and analysis phases to transform qualitative data (e.g., from interviews, observations, documents, openended items in questionnaires) into codes (most often scores) to allow for quantitative analysis (e.g., Roberts-Gray et al., 2007). ...
Rubrics are well-established tools used in a variety of educational settings, such as student assessment, teacher performance, and curriculum review. This study investigates the extent to which and how rubrics are being used in program evaluation. After exploring the background, or etymology, of the word rubric, a review of literature is conducted. Results reveal that rubric use in program evaluation is relatively rare, although increasing. Rubrics are predominately used in education and health program evaluation to transform data from one form to another, to characterize organizational functioning, and to derive explicitly evaluative conclusions. Program evaluators use rubrics during data collection and data analysis study phases, and to synthesizing findings into conclusions. This paper is the first systematic study of the use of rubrics in program evaluation. It presents a picture of how program evaluation practitioners and scholars are using or discussing rubrics.
... A TM seria essa bússola ou roteiro para orientar tanto a estratégia de ação, como a avaliação sobre elas. Para tanto, a apresentação 6/15 Em revisão de literatura sobre o uso da TM, destacamos algumas considerações importantes, entre elas, o fato de que podem ser usadas tanto para orientar a condução da intervenção, quanto discutir as teorias por trás dela (Hornik & Yanovitzky, 2003); pode integrar uma visão clara sobre as intervenções, atores, produtos e resultados, assim como articular relações, entrelaçamentos e sentidos (Ribeiro, 2020;Brandon et al., 2014); fornece um meio valioso de avaliar a eficácia da pesquisa e serve de apoio ao aprendizado e a adaptação na escala do projeto ou programa (Belcher et al., 2017) e envolve uma imaginação de futuro distinta entre os atores buscando-se uma estratégia coletiva (McLellan, 2021). ...
... Determination of efficient management of resources is an element of project management, while sustainability is the ability of an activity to pass later on its attainment. The more the science of project management evolved in complexity and applicability, the more the monitoring and evaluation systems articulated in the project (Brandon et al., 2013). Akhakpe and Igbokwe, (2012) pointed that the process of performing monitoring and evaluation needs strong system of tracking. ...
Full-text available
The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness monitoring and evaluation systems on the sustainability of community based projects in Kisarawe District, Tanzania. Descriptive survey design was used in this study. The sample comprised of 80 employees selected through simple random and purposive sampling techniques. The study population were all employees at Kisarawe district headquarters. Morgan theory of sample determination was used to determine the sample size. Data was collected through structured questionnaires and interview schedule. Non-parametric data was analysed descriptively by use of frequencies and percentages as the tools of data analysis. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the data. The findings of the study revealed that monitoring and evaluation systems was effective on the sustainability of community projects. The study recommended that there should be high level of community participation in project management phases in order to enhance the sustainability of the project. The study concludes that sustainability of community based projects depends on other factors as community participation, adequate finance and community capacity building. Also, project team in the district should seek to adopt modern techniques of project management and increases budgetary allocations for monitoring and evaluation of community based projects.
... Despite the multiple challenges and dilemmas evaluators encounter in conducting evaluation in international development contexts, including implementing participatory approaches amidst issues of power and privilege, only a few studies in our sample (e.g., Abes, 2000 ; Brandon et al., 2014 ; Chinyowa, 2011 ; Whitmore, 1998 ) identifi ed tension between localized conceptions and the notion of evaluation as a Western concept. Luo and Liu (2014) observed that conducting evaluation in rural China requires responsiveness to the complex cultural context that shapes the lives and experiences of farmers, a particularly noteworthy fi nding given that evaluators and project participants do not share similar social and economic status and cultural traditions. ...
In this article we provide a comprehensive review of 71 studies on evaluation in international development contexts published over the past 18 years. The primary purpose of the review is to explore how culture is being conceptualized and defined in international development contexts and how evaluation practitioners,scholars, and/or policymakers who work in international development evaluation frame the role of culture and cultural context in these settings. In this article we ask: How is culture framed in the international development evaluation literature? To what extent do descriptions of evaluation (design, processes, and outcomes) reflect other knowledge and value systems and perspectives? Whose values and worldviews inform the evaluation design and methodology? How does the community’s cultural context inform the evaluation methodology and methods used? Based on our analysis, we identify and discuss five themes: the manifestation of culture along a continuum from explicit to implicit, a cultural critique of participatory practice in international development, the limits of social constructivist epistemologies and representations of voice, evaluation as a cultural practice, and cultural engagement and the multifaceted evaluator role.
Full-text available
Questions of cause and effect are critical to assessing the performance of programmes and projects. When it is not practical to design an experiment to assess performance, contribution analysis can provide credible assessments of cause and effect. Verifying the theory of change that the programme is based on, and paying attention to other factors that may influence the outcomes, provides reasonable evidence about the contribution being made by the programme.
Full-text available
En la UE se ha estimado que los costes de la congesti�n representan el 2% de su PIB y que el coste de la poluci�n del aire y ruido supera el 0,6% del PIB, siendo alrededor del 90% de los mismos ocasionados por el transporte terrestre. Ante este hecho y el continuo aumento de la demanda del transporte privado frente al p�blico para los desplazamientos, muchos abogan por una conjunci�n de medidas tanto restrictivas como alternativas al uso del coche. Dentro de las primeras se encuentra el establecimiento de un peaje o una tarifa por el uso de las carreteras, medida que aunque desde el punto de vista de la Teor�a Econ�mica es la manera m�s eficiente para corregir el fallo de mercado que supone la congesti�n, desde la visi�n de pol�ticos y del p�blico no goza de gran aceptaci�n. En este trabajo se pretende hacer una simulaci�n de los efectos que tendr�a sobre el bienestar social de la implantaci�n de una medida de este tipo en la Bah�a de C�diz. In the European Union it has been estimated that the congestion cost are the 2% of the gross domestic product and the cost of pollution and noise is over 0,6%, olso it is known that the 90% of this cost are caused by overland transport. For this reason and for the always increasing demand of private transport, there are professionals who thinks that the solution have to be restrictive measures added to alternatives to the car. road pricing is a restrictive measures that for the economic theory is the most efficient way to solve congestion cost but for politicians and user of transport is not always accepted. In this study we are going to simulate road pricing for commuters in the Bah�a of C�diz and then it will be estimated welfare effects.
Full-text available
This article proposes a short list of internationally comparable indicators of individual agency and empowerment (and the corresponding survey questions). Data from these indicators would enable researchers to explore research and policy issues such as the interconnections between empowerment and economic or human development. The paper surveys definitions of agency and empowerment and adopts the definition from Amartya Sen, supplemented by Rowlands' typology. The proposed “shortlist” of indicators includes: control over personal decisions; domain-specific autonomy; household decision-making; and the ability to change aspects in one's life at the individual and communal levels. The strengths and weaknesses of each indicator are discussed, as is the need to supplement this shortlist with other variables. To ensure the feasibility of the proposal, we rely on previously fielded questions wherever possible.
This field manual provides a well-tested approach for promoting citizen participation. It breaks down the traditional boxes separating human rights, rule of law, development, and governance, then reconnects them in order to create an integrated approach to rights-based political empowerment. A New Weave of Power, People & Politics combines concrete and practical 'action steps' with a sound theoretical foundation to help users understand the process of advocacy planning and implementation. This is an 'Action Guide' that builds on the authors' 50 years of combined experience in advocacy, gender, human rights, popular education, and social change. These collective experiences were gathered in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, the former Soviet Union, and North America, and range from participatory research and community development, to neighbourhood organizing and legal rights education, to large-scale campaign advocacy. It goes beyond the first generation of advocacy manuals to delve more deeply into questions of citizenship, constituency-building, social change, gender, and accountability. Lisa VeneKlasen is Executive Director & Co-Founder of Just Associates, an international advocacy and learning organization. She has worked closely with dozens of NGOs, social movements and grassroots groups on people-centered advocacy and advocacy training. She has a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.|Dr Valerie Miller is Senior Advisor & Co-Founder of Just Associates. She was formlery Policy Advocacy Director at Oxfam America and Director of Policy and Exchange Programs at the Institute for Development Research. She has a doctorate in adult education.
This Guide has been written to help project managers and M&E staff improve the quality of M&E in IFAD-supported projects. The Guide focuses on how M&E can support project management and engage project stakeholders in understanding project progress, learning from achievements and problems, and agreeing on how to improve both strategy and operations. The main functions of M&E are: ensuring improvement-oriented critical reflection, learning to maximise the impact of rural development projects, and showing this impact to be accountable. The Guide is meant to improve M&E in IFAD-supported projects, as a study found that most projects have a fairly low standard of M&E. The Guide provides comprehensive advice on how to set up and implement an M&E system, plus background ideas that underpin the suggestions.
Summary of AWARD's M&E system
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2012). Summary of AWARD's M&E system. Nairobi, Kenya: Author.
AWARD in the news Retrieved from Female participation in African agricultural research and higher education: New insights
  • African Women
  • Research
  • Development
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. (2013). AWARD in the news. Retrieved from Beintema, N. M., & Di Marcantonio, F. (2010). Female participation in African agricultural research and higher education: New insights (International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper 00957).
The handbook of leadership development evaluation
  • Creative Center
  • Leadership
Center for Creative Leadership. (2007). The handbook of leadership development evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.