Author
Listed:
- Barry Coates
- Rosalind David
Abstract
The field of advocacy work is growing and changing rapidly and there is much to be done in exploring not only how best to carry out effective advocacy, but also how best to use the tools of monitoring & evaluation and impact assessment (M&E/IA) to promote learning, improve accountability, and assess the value of advocacy. This paper starts by exploring the complex and changing nature of advocacy work, arguing that standardised forms of M&E/IA are likely to be inappropriate--they will probably provide misleading information, and may create perverse incentives that undermine joint action. However, while there are obvious pitfalls, there are few ready-made answers. The authors suggest that NGOs involved in advocacy at all levels should identify essential elements of their work at the outset and ensure that they monitor and evaluate those areas that they deem most important. Indeed, evidence shows that short-term successes of advocacy work may often be won at the expense of longer-term aims-- such as building capacity among partners and contributing to more fundamental change in the future. Throughout, the authors argue that an analysis of power and power structures should guide advocacy strategy and the ways in which advocacy can effectively be evaluated. A successful M&E approach must be flexible enough not only to adapt to external events, but also to be a tool for reshaping the campaign. Those of us concerned with developing M&E/IA tools for effective and accountable advocacy need to start breaking new ground.
Suggested Citation
Barry Coates & Rosalind David, 2002.
"Learning for change: The art of assessing the impact of advocacy work,"
Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3-4), pages 530-541, August.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:12:y:2002:i:3-4:p:530-541
DOI: 10.1080/0961450220149870
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:12:y:2002:i:3-4:p:530-541. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cdip .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.