Monitoring & evaluation for learning in rural innovation systems

You are here: Home » KIT Information & Library Services » ILS Information products » MONITORING & EVALUATION FOR LEARNING IN RURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

KIT Dossier Monitoring & evaluation for learning in rural innovation systems

Last update: Monday 01 January 0001

Resources and cases


Below is a selection of free, online documents and websites on learning-oriented M&E methodologies. Please refer to the  KIT Information Portal on Rural Innovation Systems and the KIT Development Dossiers on Rural Innovation Systems for more information sources on this and closely related topics. For other topics such as health, gender, culture, and information, check out the overview of KIT Dossiers.
 

Contents


General introductions to M&E for learning in development

  • People-centred M&E: Aligning Incentives So Agriculture Does More to Reduce Hunger
    The articles in this seminal IDS Bulletin provide systematic evidence that until recently agricultural M&E was overly concentrated on tools and methods with a narrow focus on upward accountability. This IDS Bulletin provides insights into the genesis, the strengths and weaknesses of the prevailing M&E approaches. It makes a case for a new participatory paradigm for M&E. Its principal message is that beneficiary perspectives and engagement in M&E is smart policy because it can make a positive difference to development outcomes. In appropriate circumstances it can increase relevance of interventions while fostering empowerment, and build capacities all around through learning.
    IDS Bulletin | 2010 | Volume 41, Issue 6 |
  • M&E as learning: rethinking the dominant paradigm
    For monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to make a useful contribution to improving the impact of development there must be a greater focus on learning. The key eight building blocks for a learning orientated M&E paradigm are identified and the elements of a learning system that embodies such a paradigm are outlined. This chapter asks those in development initiatives to place the indicator and information management aspects of M&E in a broader context of organizational learning, where effective use is made of the actors tacit knowledge that is all too often ignored.
    Woodhill, J. | 2006 | In: Monitoring and evaluation of soil conservation and watershed development projects | Science Publishers | pp. 83-110
  • Monitoring & Evaluation
    Special issue of Capacity.org that offers an overview of the different methods and techniques that add new dimensions to results-based M&E.
    Capacity.Org | 2006 | Issue 29
  • Systems thinking for evaluation
    This chapter explores the origins of systems thought  and lays out its historical and intellectual development. The three “waves” of  systemic thought provide a useful framework for understanding systems thinking for evaluation.
    Midgley, G. | 2006 | In: Systems concepts in evaluation | pp. 11-34
  • Managing complexity: a systems approach
    This course aims to develop skills of thinking systematically and creatively about issues of complexity. It adopts the most recent and innovative advances in systems thinking and applies them to topical areas of concern. It is designed to help build one's capacity to manage complexity and to develop a deep understanding of contemporary systems thinking.
    Open University | undated
  • Transforming impact assessment: beginning the quiet revolution of institutional learning and change
    This article argues strongly in favour of methods of evaluative inquiry along the lines of Patton and others. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative emerged within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), with the goal of strengthening learning from experience and using lessons to improve pro-poor innovation. It is testing approaches for expanding the contributions of impact assessment and evaluation to learning, decision making and improvement.
    Watts, J., Horton, D., Douthwaite, B., La Rovere, R., Thiele, G., Prasad, S., & Staver, C. | 2008 | Experimental Agriculture, 44(01), 21–35.
  • Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses
    This article reports on experiences with reflexive process monitoring (RPM) in several networks in the Dutch agricultural sector, which strive for sustainable development. Particular attention is paid to conducting system analyses—a core element of the methodology. The first results show that system analyses indeed have the potential to enhance reflexivity if carried out collectively. However, habitual patterns of thinking and acting restrict the transformative power of the approach.
    Van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. | 2010 | American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 143 -161.
  • Systems concepts in evaluation : an expert anthology
    Until recently, the systems and evaluation fields have developed largely independently of each other. At some point, evaluators understood that systems concepts had  something to offer their evaluation work. To help that understanding, this  publication addresses three questions: (1) what key systems concepts do evaluators need to know? (2) how can evaluation benefit from using systems concepts? And (3) what do evaluations based on systems concepts look like? In the 12 chapters of this book, case studies are used to illustrate systems-based approaches in evaluation. Systems concepts are particularly useful to evaluators in situations where rigorous rethinking, reframing, and unpacking complex (“messy” or “wicked”) realities and assumptions are required.
    Williams, B., & Imam, I. | 2007 | Inverness: EdgePress.
  • Paradigms, poverty and adaptive pluralism
    Participatory methodologies (PMs) are well suited to understanding and expressing the local, complex, diverse, dynamic, uncontrollable and unpredictable (LCDDUU) realities experienced by many poor people. These contrast with the controlled conditions and universalities sought in much high status professionalism. Paradigmatically and practically, four domains have increasingly converged and cohere: PMs; poor people’s LCDDUU realities; technology; and complexity. The new paradigm of adaptive pluralism embraces, underpins and expresses ideas and practices of reflexivity, continuous learning, value and principle-based eclectic improvization, co-evolution and continuous emergence. Conceptually, it embodies paradigmatic synergies. Practically, it offers win-win solutions and generates an agenda for action.
    Chambers, R. | 2010 | IDS Working Papers | 2010(344) | pp. 1–57.
  • The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research
    Systems thinking in the social sciences can be categorized into two schools of thought: (1) systems thinking, since it advocates thinking about real social systems as if they exist in the world; (2) systemic thinking, because it assumes only that the social construction of the world is systemic. Each view offers its own fundamental knowledge for practice. This chapter explores some of the intricacies of each view, with each one offering grounding for the form of practice that we know as action research. The chapter places greater emphasis on systemic thinking, which is consistent with its greater importance to contemporary action research.
    Flood, R. L.  | 2010 | Systemic practice and action research | pp. 133–144
  • Mapping of approaches towards M&E of capacity and capacity development
    This document is the beginning of a mapping of approaches to monitoring, evaluating  and reporting on capacity and capacity development. Capacity is defined here as that emergent combination of attributes that enables a human system to create developmental value.  The mapping includes approaches that adhere to the Result Based Management (RBM) school, others that use M&E as a means for strategic planning and organizational learning, and yet others  with a methodological emphasis on  participation, inclusion of stakeholders and collaborative design (which is not  necessarily based on the formulation of indicators).
    Keijzer, N. |2006
  • Agricultural innovation coaching: AI-coach concept
    An Agricultural Innovation coach, or AI-coach, facilitates multi-stakeholder interaction for  innovation in the agricultural sector with the specific objective of poverty alleviation. In a meeting  at KIT in Amsterdam the concept of AI-coaching as a tool for facilitating rural development was  discussed. Field experience of ‘de-facto’ AI-coaches helped identify major issues surrounding the idea. A draft set-up of a capacity strengthening programme through learning by doing was elaborated.
    Pyburn, R., & Gildemacher, P. | 2008 | AI-COACH Expert Meeting, KIT, Amsterdam.
  • Participatory monitoring and evaluation: a process to support governance empowerment at the local level
    Guijt and Hilhorst provide guidelines for using participatory monitoring & evaluation (PM&E) to facilitate learning for community empowerment and local governance in Community-Driven Development (CDD) projects of the World Bank, but also in a wider decentralization context.
    Hilhorst, T. & Guijt, I. | 2006 | KIT (Royal Tropical Institute), Amsterdam
  • Managing for impact in rural development : a guide for project M&E
    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 maximize the impact of rural development projects, and showing this impact to be accountable.
    IFAD | 2002
  • Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems
    This paper seeks to assess the usefulness of the innovation systems  concept in guiding investments to support the development of agricultural technology. To that end, it develops an operational agricultural innovation systems concept. It focuses on the additional insights and types of interventions that can be derived from an innovation systems perspective and that can influence the generation and use of science and technology for economic development. Of late, within and outside the World Bank, agricultural investment strategies have gone through a number of changes, some of which are closely related to the innovation systems.
    World Bank | 2006
  • Evaluation revisited : improving the quality of evaluative practice by embracing complexity
    This report summarizes discussions and presentations of the homonymous conference that took place in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on May 20-21, 2010.
    Guijt, I., Brouwers, J., Kusters, C., Prins, E., & Zeynalova, B. | 2011 |
  • Innovations in innovation: reflections on partnerships, institutions and learning
    This book presents 8 contemporary experiences and perspectives of innovation processes associated with socio-economic change in rural areas of developing countries. Most of the papers use the innovation systems framework to provide lessons for the agricultural research community, and in particular lessons on ways of more effectively deploying agricultural science and technology as part of the socioeconomic development process. Partnership is a core methodology for promoting innovation and ways of developing effective partnerships should be a central concern. Learning, and particularly institutional learning, is a central innovation process and finding ways to enhance learning will be critical in building more effective agricultural innovation capacities.
    Hall, A. J., Yoganand, B., Sulaiman, R. V., Raina, R. S., Prasad, C. S., Naik, G. C., & Clark, N. G. | 2004 | Institute for New Technology (INTECH).
  • Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use
    Developmental evaluation (DE) offers a powerful approach to monitoring and supporting social innovations by working in partnership with program decision makers. Patton shows how to conduct evaluations within a DE framework, drawing on insights about complex dynamic systems, uncertainty, nonlinearity, and emergence. Case examples and stories show how DE can be used for a range of purposes: ongoing program development, adapting effective principles of practice to local contexts, generating innovations and taking them to scale.
    Patton, Michael Quinn | 2011 | The Guilford Press [partial preview at Amazon or Google Books]

Methodologies, Cases, Tools
 

Soft Systems Methodology/RAAKS

  
Where application to agricultural or rural innovation systems in the Global South is concerned, the approach of Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS)  is one of the best examples of the use of soft systems methodology (SSM). The RAAKS methodology is specifically designed to foster agricultural innovation, both in the South and in the West. For a short description of the methodologies, go to the SSM/RAAKS section in this dossier. Engel (1997b) used a large number of case studies and synthesis studies from 4 continents to validate and illustrate the practical use of RAAKS. It continues to be a source of inspiration for the advisers of the Socio-Economic Development area of KIT. For more information on RAAKS, refer to the KIT dossier “RAAKS: multi-stakeholder learning in agricultural innovation systems.” A number of cases in the literature can be found here, whereas an overview of the tools can be found here (Table 1).
 
  • Soft Systems Methodology
    This concise handout includes a worked example to clearly illustrate the various steps in SSM.
    Rose, J. | undated
  • Soft systems methodology 
    This training handout is complementary to Rose’s handout above. It uses the case of “Sustainable Food Collaboration” and includes a number of evaluation questions and exercises.
    Williams, B. | 2005
  • Aid-IT : learning
    Website with more information on all aspects of the use of SSM for M&E, particularly in relation to the PACAP project of AusAID in the Philippines. Much of this work was pioneered by Peter Crawford (see below)
  • Using soft system methodology to support monitoring and evaluation for community based engagement
    This paper identifies soft system methodology (SSM) as one way to overcome the complexity associated with developing monitoring and evaluation information systems (MEIS).
    Crawford, P., & Swete Kelly, D. | 2007

Action Research


Action research is the oldest in the suite of methodologies discussed in this dossier. Its basic principles are applied in many learning approaches to development and in education. As a result of its wide application it is no longer easy to define, but as long as it involves learning by trial and error or some form of experiential learning it could be considered action research.
  • Action research literature: Themes and trends
    Bob Dick of Southern Cross University, Australia, reviews recent action research literature. He gives attention to books on appreciative inquiry, action science, systems approaches and action learning. Community, health, education and organizational applications are included. Major action research journals are noted. He questions the absence of more material on building theory from action research, and on action research and complexity. For more information see also the web site     Action research resources, maintained by the same author.
    Dick, B. | 2004 | Action Research | 2(4), 425-444
  • Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation
    This brief focuses on monitoring and evaluation in Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA). Testing of impact hypotheses contained within the outcomes logic model through regular reflection workshops constitutes action research on how to foster developmental outcomes based on the use of research outputs. Since 2009 PIPA has been a major influence on the design of the M&E system of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.  More information on all aspects of PIPA, including an on-line manual, can be found at http://impactpathways.pbwiki.com.
    Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thiele, G., & Mackay, R. | ILAC Brief 17| 2008
  • Trading up: How a value chain approach can benefit the rural poor
    Describes how the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)  has been working with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS) and with action research teams across Africa and Asia for the past three years to explore different ways that the rural poor can engage successfully  in viable value chains.
    Mitchell, J., Coles, C., & Keane, J. | 2009
  • Lessons from using participatory action research to enhance farmer-led research and extension in Southwestern Uganda
    In Uganda, the National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS)  was charged with reversing the supply-driven orientation by farmer-demanded service delivery, using a participatory  action learning process to facilitate farmer groups in their institutional development process, encompassing  community visioning and planning, strengthening group organizational dynamics, agro-enterprise selection and skill-building for farmer forum members. A coalition of  research and development partners has been formed to strengthen local organization to enable farmers  better ‘own’ the development process.
    Opondo, C., German, L., Stroud, A., & Engorok, O. | 2003
  • Assessment of the Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) approach : case studies from Malawi and Uganda
    This paper presents lessons from applying an innovative action research approach for linking smallholder farmers to markets, in eastern and southern Africa.
    Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Abenakyo, A., Delve, R., & Sanginga, P.  | 2008 | Natural Resources Forum | Wiley Online Library
     


Developmental Evaluation


The term developmental evaluation was coined by Patton in the early 1990's, after the method had matured in the Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project during the 1980s and early 1990s. See Chapter 3 of his latest book, partial preview (Patton, 2011. See also “The Caribbean Agricultural Extension Project: making a difference”. For a short description of the methodology, go to the Developmental Evaluation section in this dossier). Since then, developmental evaluation has found application in the area of community development in Canada and the USA. Patton (1994) describes 4 cases of his own involvement as an evaluator with continuously evolving programmes: (1) a community leadership programme in rural Minnesota; (2) a programme of community engagement to support multicultural education in urban Minnesota; (3) an inner city community initiative to support a healthier environment for children and families; and (4) a suburban  adult  and  community  education program  facilitating action research observations for staff development  and  organizational  change. Here the evaluator almost becomes a member of the development team and plays the role of an agent of change who brings with him expertise in promoting reflection, dialogue and action planning.
 
  • Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use
    Developmental evaluation (DE) offers a powerful approach to monitoring and supporting social innovations by working in partnership with program decision makers. Patton shows how to conduct evaluations within a DE framework, drawing on insights about complex dynamic systems, uncertainty, nonlinearity, and emergence. Case examples and stories show how DE can be used for a range of purposes: ongoing program development, adapting effective principles of practice to local contexts, generating innovations and taking them to scale.
    Patton, Michael Quinn | 2011 | The Guilford Press [partial preview at     Amazon or Google Books]
  • Developmental evaluation
    Patton, M. Q. | 1994 | Evaluation Practice | 15(3), 311–319
  • Utilization-focused evaluation in Africa
    Training session delivered to the Inaugural Conference of the African Evaluation Association, 13-17 September, 1999, Nairobi.
    Patton, M. Q. | 1999
  • Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation
    This ILAC brief introduces utilization-focused evaluation (UFE), outlines key steps in the evaluation process, identifies some of the main benefits of UFE, and provides two examples of UFE in the context of programmes aimed at promoting agricultural innovation. UFE is based on the principle that an evaluation should be judged by its utility. So no matter how technically sound and methodologically elegant, an evaluation is not truly a good evaluation unless the findings are used.
    Patton, M. Q., & Horton, D. | 2009
  • Evaluation types: Formative/developmental, process and impact/outcome
    Duignan, P. | 2009

 

Outcome Mapping


For a short description of the methodology, go to the Outcome Mapping section in this dossier. One of the first places where outcome mapping was applied was in the Ceja Andina project, one of the early ILAC (Institutional Learning And Change) initiatives of CGIAR. The case was documented extensively: (1) “Case Study: Ceja Andina”; (2) “Constructing collaborative learning: outcome mapping and it’s multiple uses in the project cycle of a SUB initiative”. Other cases include: VECO (Indonesia), BaKTI (eastern Indonesia), ILRI (Kenya), SAHA (Madagascar), RAPID Strategy 2005/06 (UK), St2eep (Zimbabwe). See also Jones & Hearn (2009), listed below.

  • Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs
    Earl, S., Carden, F., Patton, M. Q., & Smutylo, T. | 2001 | IDRC
  • Outcome Mapping: A realistic alternative for planning, monitoring and evaluation
    Outcome Mapping (OM) is an approach  to planning, monitoring, and evaluating  social change initiatives developed by  the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada (Earl et al., 2001, see above). It is a set of tools and guidelines that steer project or programme teams through an iterative learning process to identify their desired change and to work collaboratively to bring it about. Results are measured by the changes in behaviour, actions and relationships of those individuals, groups or organizations with whom the initiative is working directly and which it is seeking to influence.
    Jones, H., & Hearn, S. | 2009
  • Outcome mapping
    Wikipedia | 2010

Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA)

 
The methodology and four cases of its application in the Netherlands are described in Van Mierlo et al. (2010. For a short description of the methodology, go to the RMA section in this dossier). All four cases involved national stakeholder networks: (1) the strawberry network, originally aimed at developing innovative practices to reduce fertilizer emissions to the environment; (2) the tree fruit (apple and pear) network to reduce pesticide emissions to surface and groundwater; (3) the greenhouse network to further reduce pesticide emissions to surface drains in the immediate environment; and (4) the maize network to reduce herbicide emissions. In each case the facilitation and outcome of the system analysis are described and the contribution of analysis to reflexivity is highlighted.
 

  • Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses
    This article reports on experiences with reflexive process monitoring (RPM)—an approach that has been applied in several networks in the Dutch agricultural sector, which strive for sustainable development. Networks aiming for fundamental changes in agricultural sustainability bring together a variety of actors who are part and parcel of a problematic context. Such system innovation projects need to be accompanied by a monitoring and evaluation approach that supports and maintains reflexivity to be able to deal with uncertainties and conflicts while challenging current practices and related institutions. (From authors’ abstract).
    Van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. | 2010 | American Journal of Evaluation | 31(2): 143-161
  • Reflexive Monitoring in Action : a guide for monitoring system innovation projects  
    This guide describes the use of the RMA tools in a number of cases.
    Van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B., van Amstel, M., Arkesteijn, M., & Beekman, V. | 2010
  • Transitiepraktijk (web site)
    This website has been created by the Dutch Competence Centre for Transitions and the Knowledge Network on System Innovations and Transitions as a tool for anyone involved in efforts to make the transition to sustainable development. The site contains a     special section on M&E, where it says: “learning is an important objective in the monitoring and evaluation of a transition programme.”
  • Capturing Development (blog) 
    Capturing Development is Marlen Arkesteijn’s blog on promoting sustainable development through the use of planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that enhance learning in the fields of nature preservation, agriculture and poverty alleviation.


Other Material

  • Assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating agricultural innovation systems, pp. 539-628, in: Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook
    This module examines processes to inform decision making and manage inovation at four generally defined levels of the innovation system for agriculture: policy, investment, organization, and intervention. The module identifies methods relevant at each level for assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating innovation process
    Odame, H.H., A. Hall, D. Kumuda | 2011 | World Bank
  • Taking responsibility for complexity: how implementation can achieve results in the face of complex problems
    There is a growing recognition that many problems facing policies and programmes are complex and need to be treated as such. Implementation must deal with interdependent problems, navigating nonlinear and often unpredictable change processes, involving a diverse range of stakeholders. This paper gives readers the tools to decide in what way the challenges they face are complex.
    Jones, Harry | 2011 | ODI Working Paper 330
  • Enhancing learning through evaluation: Approaches, dilemmas and some possible ways forward
    An overview of a number of approaches through which development practitioners and researchers have tried to enhance learning for development is presented, using three perspectives for enhancing learning through evaluation. Dilemmas faced by evaluators and their sponsors are identified and challenges for the near future are formulated.
    Engel, P., & Carlsson, C. | 2002 | ECDPM
  • Multi Stakeholder Processes – resources – MSP Resource portal
    A list of articles and books on the facilitation of multi-stakeholder processes and social learning, some of them free online.
  • KIT Information Portal Rural Innovation Systems for M&E for Learning
    The KIT information portal on Rural Innovation Systems contains about 100 websites and 500 open-access Internet publications on agricultural and rural innovation, including a large number on monitoring & evaluation of the innovation process.
  • Workshop on rethinking impact : understanding the complexity of poverty and change
    In 2008, a workshop entitled “Rethinking Impact: Understanding the Complexity of Poverty and Change” was held in Cali, Colombia, to draw from the experience of professionals from multiple disciplines of natural and social sciences regarding evaluation of research aimed at poverty reduction, social inclusion and sustainable development. A number of papers deal with innovative approaches for learning and evaluation.
    PRGA | 2008
  • CosContour
    During the second phase (2008-2013) of the "Convergence of Sciences: Strengthening agricultural innovation systems in Benin, Ghana and Mali" (COS-SIS) programme an innovation systems approach to sustainable rural poverty alleviation and food security is experimented. The CosContour website provides the latest news and resources emanating from the programme. Information on M&E for learning as applied in the COS-SIS programme is provided in the document “    Short report on the third AI Coach workshop for the CoS-SIS project - October 30-November 4, 2010”
  • Evaluation revisited: improving the quality of evaluative practice by embracing complexity
    This conference blog contains all case materials, videos, interviews, and a link to the conference report. For additional material on complexity in evaluation you may wish to consult     Aid on the Edge of Chaos or Navigating Complexity.
    2010 |
  • Innovation systems in agriculture and rural development
    Literature on innovation systems (IS) does not adequately explain how system thinking enhances innovation or how IS can be initiated and facilitated. Another gap is the fact that “innovation” itself is promoted rather than its embeddedness within a system that in turn operates within certain institutional and policy contexts. Even though there is consensus on the importance of innovation for economic development, the systemic mechanism through which it can be enhanced is not given equal attention.
    Beshah, T. | 2009 | CTA – Knowledge for Development
  • External resources on agricultural research for development
    The     International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) provides a range of capacity building courses on agricultural research for development (ARD). Over the years it has collected a large number of links to relevant external resources, including links to monitoring/evaluation; reflection/learning, links to systems and systems thinking, and links to action research and learning.
  • Evaluating extension programmes (Chapter 11 in: Improving agricultural extension. A reference manual)
    This chapter marks the transition between the old and new way of thinking about the role of evaluation in agricultural development. It sums up the disadvantages of the classical approach and outlines the requirements for new methods of M&E. See also Chapter 3,     a systems perspective.
    Deshler, D. | 1997
  • The most significant change (MSC) technique: A guide to its use
    The most significant change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is participatory because many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analysing the data. It is a form of monitoring because it occurs throughout the program cycle and provides information to help people manage the program. It contributes to evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the performance of the program as a whole.
    Davies, R., & Dart, J. | 2005  
  • Managing for Impact in Rural Development - A Guide for Project M&E
    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 main functions of M&E are: ensuring improvement-oriented critical reflection, learning to maximize the impact of rural development projects, and showing this impact to be accountable.
    IFAD | 2002
  • Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
    Most of the articles in this issue of PLA Notes draw on a workshop on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation which was held in the Philippines in November 1997. This issue explores some of the opportunities for moving towards a monitoring and evaluation process that has greater local value. It also takes the following challenges into account: (1) How do we make monitoring and evaluation more participatory – and maintain high levels of involvement? (2) How does participation of diverse groups influence the selection of what we monitor or evaluate? (3) What methods are feasible in which contexts?
    IIED | PLA (Participatory Learning and Action) Notes 31 | 1998
  • Jim Woodhill's Blog "About my work at the Centre for Development
    Woodhill is director of the     Centre for Development Innovation at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He publishes widely on agricultural innovation, M&E, smallholder development, and complexity. The blog provides access to some of his online publications.
  • Monitoring & Evaluation Methodologies
    The Sector Development Practice/Effectiveness of the Australian Development Gateway contains overviews of     Monitoring & Evaluation Approaches & Issues, Monitoring & Evaluation Principles, Monitoring & Evaluation Methodologies, Organisational Learning & Change Management, Participatory & Related Approaches, and Community-Based Approaches.
    AusAID
  • Framing Poverty as a Complex Issue
    This case from Canada not only shows that developmental evaluation is routinely used in the West, but also demonstrates how the concepts and approaches developed by Michael Q. Patton can be understood and applied.
    Weaver, L. & Cabaj, M.| Tamarack
  • Pelican Initiative: Platform for Evidence-based Learning & Communication for Social Change
    This D-Group seeks to bring together development practitioners from different disciplines, specialists and policy makers to explore: (1) evidence and learning for policy change; (2) learning in organisations and among partners; and (3) society-wide learning among a multitude of stakeholders.
  • Tracking and monitoring change: Two simple approaches to operationalise process monitoring
    The flat-pack and artisanal approaches to process monitoring are explained. The power of process monitoring lies in the fact that not only does it help track change, but it also promotes iterative learning and subsequent change among stakeholders and the explicit linking of policy processes to operational activities and impact.
    Dijkman, J. | 37:15 9
  • Evaluation - IDRC
    IDRC aims to integrating a culture of “evaluative thinking” into its activities. Evaluative thinking involves: (i) being results-oriented, reflective, and questioning; (ii) being able to articulate values; and (iii) using evidence to test assumptions.
  • Evaluation Conference 2011
    On January 25 and 26, 2011 the Evaluation and Audit Division of the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Evaluation Unit of GTZ offered a forum to discuss systemic approaches to evaluation at an international conference. The following questions were addressed: (1) What are systemic evaluations, what is new about them? (2) For which kind of evaluations are systemic approaches useful or not? (3) Are rigorous impact studies and systemic evaluations antipodes or can they be combined? (4) Which methods and tools from systemic consulting can be used?
    GTZ | 2011
  • Agricultural innovation (AI) coaching
    The role of agricultural Innovation coaches is to initiate and guide the process of innovation through facilitating the interaction between agricultural system stakeholders. AI coaches may use some of the methodologies described in the present dossier on M&E for learning in innovation. In that sense, the KIT dossier on AI coaching is complementary to the present dossier on M&E for learning.
    Sluijs, J. (KIT) | 2010
  • Bob Williams’ WEB page
    Williams is a short-term consultant who provides support in the use of systems concepts in evaluation. He co-authored the well received “Systems concepts in action: a practitioner's toolkit” (2010,     partial preview), which explores the application of systems ideas to investigate, evaluate, and intervene in complex and messy situations.
  • Learning for Sustainability
    Will Allen’s web site  contains sections on     social learning for sustainability and on evaluation & reflection. A central section links the reader to a range of guides, tools and checklists to address issues involved in managing multi-stakeholder participation and engagement initiatives. A new page covers tools, tips and techniques for facilitators and other social engagement specialists. Other sections provide links to best and emerging practice in specific areas including social learning, systems thinking, adaptive management, network building and mapping, dialogue, knowledge management, and evaluation and reflection.
  • Mapping of approaches towards M&E of capacity and capacity development
    The mapping includes approaches that adhere to the Result Based Management (RBM) school, others that use M&E as a means for strategic planning and organizational learning, and yet others  with a methodological emphasis on participation, inclusion of stakeholders and collaborative design.
    Keijzer, N. | 2006 | ECDPM

    Knowledge, learning and development: a post-rationalist approach
    This review argues the need to attend to how knowledge and learning are conceived in development and how they are produced through organizations.  Drawing on mainstream development literature, the review argues that there is a pervasive rationalist conception of knowledge and knowledge transfer as objective and universal, which has political implications.  By contrast, the review argues for a post-rationalist approach that conceives development knowledge and learning as partial, social, produced through practices, and both spatially and materially relational.
    McFarlane, C. | 2006 | Progress in Development Studies | 6(4), 287

 

Websites 

Heemskerk, W. - Stakeholder-driven funding mechanisms for agricultural innovation

Related items

What are dossiers?

Dossiers are thematic guides to selected documents, links, and work of the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). They cover sub-themes within the broader scope of a KIT information portal.

Search KIT portal

Rural Innovation Systems

Related dossiers
Related information portals
Contact

For questions or suggestions about this dossier, please contact Sjon van 't Hof at s.v.t.hof@kit.nl.