This is the summary of conversation between Angela and Ricardo as part of the pre-workshop interaction. The responses depict views on issues related to evaluation of ICTs.
What constitutes credible evaluation and acceptable evidence in your context?
I lean more towards qualitative data – what is important is the WHY, especially in gender advocacy. In this sense qualitative data from one person IS credible.
In terms of evidence: we can measure the change with the GEM practitioner, there is a difference that can be noted such as their own realization about themselves, how they work as an organization, how team members function.
How do you currently do M&E? What methods, approaches, etc. are you required / do you choose to use?
I am not required to use any method or approach for M&E of the project, so I basically use a combination. Currently, mainly relying on observations and mentally keep track of follow-up (with the help of a not very exhaustive to-do list). I have not done a plan yet, something that is to be done with the team. Focus currently is on how people are responding as possible project partners, what evaluation plans they want to conduct. Also of course deadlines, coordination, etc.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the way you currently do M&E?
Not yet analyzed. Weaknesses are probably consistency, and timeliness. It is all in my head for now. It works for me now, but if i was to sit down and analyze it, some other weaknesses will probably arise.
How familiar you are with the following evaluation approaches?
GEM (Gender Evaluation Methodology)
Very familiar, they conduct workshops on GEM!
What experience have you had in gender evaluation and gender training?
Joined in March this year, so she has not actually attended a formal GEM workshop, though she was part of the original planning (1999-2001). Uses elements form the Conceptual Framework, e.g. levels of empowerment, severity of development problems from a gender perspective. She leans more towards the qualitative, and she recalls that a colleague felt GEM was very indicator based which surprised her, so there are different interpretations.
OM (Outcome Mapping)
Have heard of it, not very familiar.
How would you differentiate between outputs and outcomes?
Outputs: directly what the project says its products are, they tend to be under its control to a large extent.
Outcomes: less in the project control, especially about behaviour change, these are more reflective and about process.
MSC (Most Significant Change)
Not familiar at all.
What other approaches do you use?
Ethnographic methods: triangulation, in-depth interviews, observation, focus group. In particular face-face interactions tell you lots, especially body language. Not all of this may fit under GEM, but all methods are open to interpretation.
How much attention do you want us to give to LogFrames?
Leave it out.
How much attention do you want us to give to ICT indicators?
Provide reference materials and ignore during the workshop.
Generally familiar. Depends on scope of coverage of session or how exactly this will be covered. Have the IDS Bridge Pack on Gender and ICT package (available in English from www.bridge.ids.ac.uk)
Preference for the reference materials to take home:
Both hard copies and electronic.
Provide your three main expectations for this workshop.
- To learn field tricks to do evaluation better: beyond theory, practical and as applied to different project designs (scale of project, lack of face-to-face, etc.). For example in OM there are boundary partners; what if the project cannot control who they are, if the project does not give out funds to partners, if you’re reliant on people to approach you to see the mutual benefit of partnering under a project even without the financial sponsorship element, so how do you do it then? Global project planning and management is a little different from conducting a project in a particular locality. This type of practical operational tips will be welcome.
- To learn from others.
- To have fun, hoping this will not feel like a burden.