GEM – II

Building Gender and Evaluation Practice within the ICT for Development Community : Gender Evaluation Methodology II

Users:

  1. GEM 2 project team (management)
  2. Association for Progressive Communications (APC) [project owner/holder]
  3. GEM Facilitators
  4. GEM workshop participants and those who have asked for GEM workshops and co-organised these with GEM (throughout phases 1 and 2)
  5. GEM practitioners / GEM users

 Uses:

  1. To improve the capacity-building model / approach used by the GEM project (phases 1 and 2) and to contribute towards the GEM business development strategy.
  2. To contribute to animating and sustaining interest and commitment to gender evaluation and in the GEM practitioners network [process use]

 

Key Evaluation Questions

Gender & ICT Indicators

Evaluation Users

Boundary Partners

Methodology & Tools

1. How has GEM contributed to change in attitudes and practices in relation to gender and gender-power relations?

Level of participation of women and roles in project teams of GEM users

 

Type of participation of women in workshops and projects

 

Types of questions asked by GEM users

 

·         Project team

·         APC

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

GEM facilitators

·         Expect to see

·         Like to see

·         Love to see

 

GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         Expect to see

·         Like to see

·         Love to see

OM, GEM and MSC

 

·         In-depth interview (face-to-face, telephone, VOIP)

·         Story-telling

·         Focus group discussions

 

Other data sources:

·         Project evaluation findings/ reports of GEM users / GEM adaptors

 

1.1 How has GEM contributed to change in attitudes and practices in relation to gender and gender-power relations within the individual (and his/her relations with the family)?

·          

·         Project team

·         APC

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

 

1.2 How has GEM contributed to change in attitudes and practices in relation to gender and gender-power relations within the project team / organizational staff?

·          

·         Project team

·         APC

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

 

1.3 How has GEM contributed to change in attitudes and practices in relation to gender and gender-power relations within the project (between the project team and the community)?

·          

·         Project team

·         APC

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

 

·         Boundary partner of boundary partner (community, project beneficiaries)

 

1.4 How has GEM contributed to change in attitudes and practices in relation to gender and gender-power relations within the community / among project beneficiaries?

Level of women’s visibility and participation (roles, decision-making)

·         Project team

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         Boundary partner of boundary partner (community, project beneficiaries)

 

 

 

·          

·          

 

2. How has GEM contributed to increasing capacity in gender evaluation and gender evaluation facilitation?

Types of questions asked by GEM facilitators

 

Types of answers provided by GEM facilitators

·         Project team

·         APC

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         GEM workshop participants and those who have asked for GEM workshops and co-organised these with GEM

 

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

·         GEM workshop participants and those who have asked for GEM workshops and co-organised these with GEM

 

GEM, OM and MSC

 

·         In-depth interview (face-to-face, telephone, VOIP)

·         Story-telling

·         Focus group discussions

 

Other data sources:

GEM workshop plans

Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

3. How has GEM contributed to increasing inclination and capacity towards policy advocacy in relation to gender and ICT issues?

·          

·         Project team

·         APC

 

GEM, MSC

 

·         In-depth interview (face-to-face, telephone, VOIP)

 

Other data sources:

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. To what extent has GEM appropriately engaged with the GEM practitioners (past and present, throughout phases 1 and 2)

·          

·         Project team

·         GEM facilitators

·         GEM practitioners / GEM users

GEM practitioners

GEM, MSC

 

·         Questionnaire / survey

·         Semi-structured interviews (face-to-face, telephone, VOIP)

 

Other Data Sources:

·         Type of online engagement (communications through e-mail, content on GEM Zone)

 

 

 

 

 

 
NEXT STEPS

Next steps of implementation of the evaluation plan

·         Evaluation planning meeting with project team and GEM lead facilitators for the four thematic adaptation research areas (Jan to March 2008)

·         Consultation with project team members, APC, GEM facilitators and selected GEM users and GEM adaptors, as well as past workshop participants/co-organisers of GEM workshops

 Plan on capacity-building in evaluation

·         Workshop with MSC expert

·         GEM workshops and evaluation planning for thematic adaptations

·         On-site mentoring support (support for gender analysis of findings)

·         Online mentoring support

 Plan on networking with others on evaluation

·         Would seek mentoring support for GEM II project team as well as GEM practitioners and GEM adaptors, in relation to tools and methodology (OM and MSC) where applicable.

 Document and share approaches in evaluation for ICT4D

·         Publish and put online findings of evaluation

·         Publish and put online supplementary guides – GEM Facilitators Guide

·         Publish and put online thematic adaptation guides on how to adapt GEM for telecentres, localization initiatives, national ICT policy processes and rural ICT4D projects.

Buzz Group – OM
1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Identifying behavioural change in incremental stages
  • Determination/identification of boundary partener to help narrow down focus of evaluation/ more manageable and more realistic

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • Documentation of observation would depend a lot on skill and capacity of the person tasked to do this – how to ensure same level of observation, skill and interpretation across the board?
  • How to document and ensure confidentiality especially if we are talking about gender and therefore power dynamics??

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • How to determine baseline on behaviour? What if people (BP) are not completely transparent about the behaviour since it is to do with gender and it maybe personal

Buzz Group – MSC

1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Cycle of dialog, continuous dialog that helps suss out values of different stakeholders
  • Qualitiative, storytelling approach gives value to voice from the community

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • Interview skills – depends on individual interview skills how they probe for the story
  • May be a long process of getting if they go back and forth in terms of elaborating positive unexpected outcomes

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • Budgetary constraints via-a-vis interviews – How to increase credibility of stories and the narrative

Buzz Group – MSC
1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Strong integration of gender perspective and analysis in the evaluation
  • Flexible, allows and encourages consideration of context

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • N/A

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • Maybe difficult to obtain a clear picture of different outcomes/influence of women and men since the # of men in project participation significantly smaller than # of women
  • Although the will be a lot of in seeing the change of attitude and practices in relation to gender by women themselves.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: