A proposed monitoring and evaluation curriculum based on a model that institutionalises monitoring and evaluation
African Evaluation Journal
| Field | Value | |
| Title | A proposed monitoring and evaluation curriculum based on a model that institutionalises monitoring and evaluation | |
| Creator | Wotela, Kambidima | |
| Description | Background: African politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats have thrown their weight in support of monitoring and evaluation (ME). This weight has compelled training institutions to add ME to their offerings. Most often at the end of these training programmes, attendees know what they have learnt but seem not to internalise it and, worse, they hardly ever put their newly acquired knowledge into practice. This allegation has led to what we term ‘monitoring and evaluation training hopping’ where participants move from one training to another hoping that they will eventually fully comprehend the skill and apply it to their work. This rarely happens and as such participants often blame themselves and yet the problem is with the training institutions that are teaching the middle-third tier (how to monitor and evaluate) as well as the bottom-third tier (data and information management). However, the top-third tier that links ME to ‘the what’ and ‘the how’ as well as ‘the why’ in the development intervention and public policy landscape is missing.Objectives: To propose a ME curriculum that institutionalises ME within implementation and management of development interventions.Method: We use systems thinking to derive the key themes of our discussion and then apply summative thematic content analysis to interrogate ME and related literature. Firstly, we present and describe a model that situates ME within development and public policy. This model ‘idealises or realises’ an institutionalised ME by systematically linking the contextual as well as key terms prominent in established descriptions of ME. Secondly, we briefly describe ME from a systems thinking approach by pointing out its components, processes, established facts, as well as issues and debates. Lastly, we use this model and the systems thinking description of ME to propose an institutionalised ME curriculum.Results: Our results show that for an explicit understanding of ME, one needs to understand all three tiers of ME. These are development interventions and public policy (top tier), ME concepts, terminologies and logic (middle tier) and data collection and storage, data processing and analysis, reporting and some aspects of integrating the findings into planning, implementation and management (bottom tier).Conclusion: Unless we offer an all-round ME training, we will not move beyond monitoring and evaluating development interventions for compliance. | |
| Publisher | AOSIS | |
| Date | 2017-04-12 | |
| Identifier | 10.4102/aej.v5i1.186 | |
| Source | African Evaluation Journal; Vol 5, No 1 (2017); 8 pages 2306-5133 2310-4988 | |
| Language | eng | |
| Relation |
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:
https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/186/323
https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/186/322
https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/186/324
https://aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/186/314
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
