As a new member in the M&E sector I’ve been thinking about the structure of the monitoring and evaluation system, what drives its actors, and how knowledge within the M&E is generated. And by using a decolonial approach, I have understood the system better! The systems of hierarchy – covering societies’ domains of power- and the universality of knowledge are two main ideas in decolonial theory that can explain many trends within the M&E sector, and these are the two ideas that are going to frame this blog.
Who generates M&E analysis models?
Most methods, evaluation criteria, and analysis models employed in the M&E sector are influenced by western mainstream standards that have been accepted by the humanitarian community, including humanitarian frameworks such as the Sphere handbook. Similarly, most theories of change that are used in M&E were originated by Western academics and practitioners. Nonetheless, many templates are provided to organisations to measure the outcome of their programmes. And crucially, these templates are not designed with the local knowledge or context in mind. It is argued that these models are based on a simple cause and effect relationship which does not reflect the reality of the results of the programmes. Due to the simplicity of the research design, complex power dynamics, interactions between stakeholders and the unintended outcomes are overlooked, leading to false conclusions or irrelevant recommendations.
The indicators that are used to evaluate a project are mostly imposed by international organisations to assess the effectiveness of local partners actions. These indicators are not culturally contextual indicators, meaning that they are universally assumed to be applicable in most situations ignoring cultural specificities. Many humanitarian practitioners have limited cultural understanding which impacts the quality of the indicators exposed, whereas, new studies show the shift to remote M&E due to COVID-19 has increased the role of national evaluators. This shift has reflected the knowledge and understanding of the local situation and context by local actors. Despite this, there is still minimal inclusion of local actors’ thoughts and perspective in designed M&E models, and limited consideration of competing narratives about the performance of the programme from the affected populations.
These trends reflect dynamics of the knowledge system in the M&E, western knowledge is seen as superior to local knowledge epitomized by the way knowledge is generated in this system, namely, research designs, standards and perspective. This devalues the voices of local actors which defies one of the aims of humanitarian and development actions: empowerment.
But why are we conducting M&E in the first place?
M&E aims to improve decision-making and increase accountability for both donors and ‘beneficiaries’. However, many research papers show that M&E results are not used directly to improve decision-making but have become more of a ‘check the box’ activity that is essential to satisfy donors and get more donations and funds.
According to a study by ANALP, 93% of evaluation practitioners that participated in the survey argue that there is insufficient use of evaluation findings to improve programmes. 73% of respondents reported that M&E was used to fulfill the institutional requirements rather than for decision-making. In conjunction with how M&E practices are becoming more competitive as there is a lack of inter-agency coordination, joint evaluations and information sharing between actors because each organisation results in M&E being done for the purpose of satisfying upstream requirements. This makes its effectiveness limited in terms of improving programmes decision-making and causing assessment fatigue amongst the affected populations. This environment reflects how the practice of M&E is not focused on enhancing decision-making or benefiting affected populations. However, it reflects the hierarchy of the system, who is valued and who is not; affected populations Vs donors.
M&E requires a lot of paperwork, verification, and proof of delivery. This has led to local partners and staff getting overburdened while also affecting the relationship between local partners and their international headquarters. The excessive and repeated requests of verification of the effectiveness of the program creates an environment of distrust between actors. On the other hand, these actions don’t actually fulfill any benefits for the ‘beneficiaries’ but actually only contribute to the accountability to the donors and the completion of upstream requirements. It also makes evaluation a ‘technical endeavor that divides humanitarian actors between ‘practitioners’ and ‘experts’, hence, contributes to creating knowledge ranks in a hierarchical system. The purpose behind M&E practices and how it has been implemented reflect the power dynamics within the M&E sector and the hierarchy of the system; all wanting to please the highest rank while the lower rank is subordinated.
To that end, without looking at the challenges that face M&E in decolonial lenses, many humanitarian structural underlying issues can be better addressed, and as M&E practitioners, we will be better suited to make change.
Resources
- https://humansofdata.atlan.com/2015/03/5-things-wrong-monitoring-and-evaluation-process/
- https://aea365.org/blog/as-an-evaluator-do-i-use-words-e-g-stakeholder-that-can-be-harmful-to-others-by-goldie-macdonald-anita-mclees/
- https://www.alnap.org/blogs/decolonisation-and-localisation-new-dawn-or-old-history
- https://www.3ieimpact.org/blogs/understanding-real-world-complexities-greater-uptake-evaluation-findings
- https://www.alnap.org/help-library/breaking-the-mould-alternative-approaches-to-monitoring-and-evaluation
- https://www.alnap.org/help-library/back-to-the-drawing-board-how-to-improve-monitoring-of-outcomes
- https://www.peacedirect.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PD-Decolonising-Aid_Second-Edition.pdf
- https://odihpn.org/blog/racism-in-humanitarian-action-a-call-to-action/
- https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/21/interview-walter-mignolopart-2-key-concepts/
- https://www.alnap.org/help-library/evolving-evaluation-practice-past-present-and-future-challenges
- https://www.alnap.org/help-library/learning-as-we-go-how-covid-19-is-changing-evaluation-strategy-and-planning
- https://brightthemag.com/why-i-hate-the-word-beneficiaries-778f49445402
About the Author
Zainab Ekrayem was a Junior Officer within Trust’s Proposal Writing Department. She completed her bachelor’s degree in International Politics, focused on right-wing parties and refugees in Europe for her dissertation. She also has a Master’s degree in International Development from SOAS University of London and completed her thesis on the Localisation Agenda and the Decolonial Theory in the Humanitarian Sector.
Read more about Zainab on LinkedIn.
