Product moneval

From cg-parade ilriwikis

Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation

Writeshop

Oxford, 12-13 December 2013

Design an M&E for PAR approaches, methods and tools

See other products


Word version: File:product_moneval.docx



Marina Apgar, Valentine JG Bavanirajan, Murat Sartas, Clovis Kabaseke

  1. Introduction

A group of practitioners came together at the Participatory Agricultural Research, Approaches, Design and Evaluation in Oxford on December 9 – 13 to take stock of and review current and innovative tools and approaches used in participatory agricultural research and develop strategies to build legitimacy, effectiveness and use of participatory approaches and tools within the CGIAR research programs. The workshop participants viewed the CGIAR reform process as an opportunity for broadening and deepening the use of participatory approaches in agricultural research programs and were focused on practical actions to help realize the potential for participatory approaches within this new framing. Participatory Agricultural Research (PAR) was defined by the workshop as agricultural research that ‘involves people who are concerned about or affected by an issue and enabling them to take a leading role in producing and using knowledge about it’. It was recognized that PAR is derived from the more broadly used participatory action research and focused on agriculture. During the workshop, the expert group derived a five year vision of success for PAR include combined vision statement here One of action areas to help achieve the vision that was prioritized by the group for immediate and follow up work was on the thorny issue of monitoring and evaluation of PAR approaches and tools. This action plan was developed by the PARADE participants and lays out the process for development of an M&E system for PAR.

  1. Context and Framing of the Action Plan

PAR works across scales PAR is not a research method in the traditional sense, but rather, it is an approach or way of working on agricultural research with others in a process of co-inquiry. Therefore, it works across scales within a research program or project as well as spatial scales with stakeholders from the village to the system or national levels. Within an agricultural research program PAR can be the approach through which a program and its engagement with stakeholders is designed and implemented thus informing all program activities. PAR in this sense in an approach to doing agricultural research (link to framework group here) At a smaller scale, PAR can be a methodology for a defined problem or area of research within a particular research stream or place. PAR in this sense is a methodology to addressing a particular problem through agricultural research. A participatory approach or methodology used in agricultural research is implemented in practice through tools that facilitate the joint learning with stakeholders who may be farmers, researchers, policy makers and others. In this sense we talk about PAR tools. Link to progress made by state of the art working group and typologies they might have developed Why an M&E system for PAR? Among the ‘thorny issues’ discussed during the workshop were a number of methodological challenges with implementing truly inter-disciplinary research including the perception that participatory approaches lack methodological rigor, there is a lack of a clear conceptual framework and systematic use of tools and difficulty in scaling of results. A further challenge identified was the lack of concrete evidence, examples and proof of the results of PAR. Within the current drive for CGIAR research programs to focus on outcomes and impact and respond to demands of stakeholders, the need to produce evidence that a certain approach, methodology or tool in use is not only rigorous but also supports the achievement of development outcomes and impact becomes paramount. Multiple Objectives & Components PAR M&E system As a response to these thorny issues, a monitoring and evaluation system can provide the process through which to learn about rigor, effectiveness and value of PAR tools, methods and approaches, improve their use within agricultural research programs and produce evidence that taking a PAR approach to doing agricultural research supports achievement of development outcomes and impacts. These three objectives for an M&E system for PAR require a system that moves away from M&E as primarily an accountability tool to a system that emphasizes learning for adaptive management. M&E for outcomes and impact For the objective of producing evidence that taking a PAR approach to doing agricultural research within the CGIAR supports achievement of development outcomes and impact, program level M&E for outcomes and impact is the appropriate vehicle. Theory of Change is the tool which all CRPs are currently using to develop impact pathways that illustrate how program activities and interventions will lead to changes in practice and behaviors of stakeholders which in turn will bring about Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). These program level M&E efforts sit within the outcome focused results based management system which all CRPs will use as their main reporting and evaluation framework to collectively appreciate how investments and efforts support achievement of the System Level Outcomes (SLOs). Recent progress in development of appropriate impact evaluation frameworks and methodologies for complex natural resource management and agricultural research programs, such as those engaged in by the systems CRPs, is guiding design of M&E in CRPs. In some cases the emphasis rests in learning as the main vehicle for supporting progress along long causal pathways towards outcomes and impact.


M&E for Learning & Performance For the objectives of learning about the rigor, effectiveness and value of PAR tools and methods used within CRPs with the main purpose of improving how they are used such that they support achievement of program goals, an internal and learning focused M&E system is required. The effectiveness of participatory methods and tools is difficult to monitor and evaluate in large part due to the need to adapt each tool to the local context, producing an indefinite number of applications of tools. Further, it is widely recognized that their effectiveness depends largely o the quality of facilitation and skills within which they are implemented. Focus of Action Plan Based on the expertise, time and emphasis of the working group that has emerged from the PARADE workshop as well as the immediate need of the CGIAR community of PAR practitioners, the action plan defined focuses on the M&E for Learning and Performance of PAR tools and methods within programs. We recognize also that the M&E system designed for PAR within programs must be embedded within the CRP M&E systems for outcomes and impact. To that end, in parallel to this process, the emerging CoP should strategically work with program evaluation teams and influence program M&E development.

  1. Objectives of the Action Plan

The objectives are:

  • Design an M&E system to facilitate learning and build effectiveness in use and impact from PAR approaches, tools and methods within CGIAR Research Programs
  • Embedding the PAR M&E system within wider CRP M&E frameworks and systems for outcomes and impact
  1. Activity Plan
Activity Methodology Output Timeframe
Desktop study of existing M&E frameworks for PAR tools and methods Define scope of review
Identify resource and employ
Review of existing M&E frameworks 3 months
Analyze characterization developed by State of Art group in light of M&E frameworks Liaise with State of the Art group and conduct analysis Inputs for design process 3 months
Design a generic M&E system for PAR tools and methods Define design team and reference group
Produce design
System including tools & guide in accessible format 6 months
Use rigorous piloting methodology to pilot system in CRPs Define pilot scope and methodology Documents for evidence 1 year
Develop a consultation mechanism with CRP M&E for outcomes and impact teams Define mechanism for internal and cross CRP influencing strategy Mechanism defined and in use in CRPs 6 months
  1. Implementation Process and Principles

The methodology for designing the M&E system is underpinned by the following principles: • Participation—which means opening up the design of the process to include those most directly affected, and agreeing to analyze data together; and also to set mutually agreed indicators; • Negotiation—to reach agreement about what will be monitored or evaluated, how and when data will be collected and analyzed, what the data actually mean, how findings will be shared, and what action should be taken; • Learning—becomes the basis for subsequent improvement and corrective action; • Flexibility—is essential because the numbers, roles, and skills of stakeholders, the external environment, and other factors change over time. This draft action plan was developed by an internal working group of the PARADE participants and will be shared with the emerging Community of Practice on PAR in the CGIAR. The implementation of the plan should be guided by the CoP with a core team with the right expertise and time driving the process. This will require periodic sharing of outputs of the activities throughout the implementation period with the CoP.

  1. Resources Required

Human resources: At least 2 people conversant with M&E of participatory approaches and experience in agricultural research programs. Preliminary very Rough Budget

Item Detail USD
Human resources
Consultant for review 500 USD X 20 days 10000
Consultant for analysis & design 750 USD X 10 days 7500
Meetings & Workshops
Participatory design workshop 5 people 3 day workshop 18000
Finalize design workshop 15 people 3 days 30000
Pilot testing
In-country pilot costs Based on estimate in Uganda 30000
95,500.000