Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation
This paper examines the assumptions that commonly underpin the design of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) within development programmes through the examination of a case study of a large rural development programme in Uganda. This case study reveals a mismatch between programme assumptions and participant perceptions, which stymied the implementation of PM&E. In this case, PM&E was based on the assumptions that programme and participant goals were compatible, participants were willing to volunteer and engage themselves for the greater good of their communities, and information sharing and communication was fairly free and open. However, farmers within the programme felt that the bureaucratic and accountability requirements of the programme were not their concern, and were acutely aware of power differences between farmers and programme officials, and between farmers of varying status. The key lesson to be drawn from this case is the need for a heightened awareness of power dynamics and political factors in the design of PM&E.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bamberger, Michael, 1991. "The politics of evaluation in developing countries," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 325-339, January.
- Holte-McKenzie, Merydth & Forde, Sarah & Theobald, Sally, 2006. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 365-376, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:3:p:229-237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.