"Steering, control, accountability, and predictability come back on the throne. The purpose of evaluation is no longer to stimulate endless discussions in society, but to prevent them."
Thing is, donors pay for and design them. What does this say about evaluation capacity within donor agencies? And I'm not referring to academic expertise on methodology (the supply side, rather the politics of the demand side).
For example, DFID's, now FCDO, evaluation function has never been independent - it's been hidden under the broader research function - with inevitable consequence. Tony Blair was proud of his lack of adaptability in not having a reverse gear or changing course. No surprise that an independent review rated DFID as red on learning and found that
“Staff report that they sometimes are asked to use evidence selectively in order to justify decisions.”
It is often the most rigid and bureaucratic organisations that congratulate themselves on being a learning organisation. This happened, not because DFID did not have many excellent and competent staff, rather because of how powerful political and institutional imperatives crowd out time to think, reflect and be honest.
As an aside, have you /do you know of any "evaluations" commissioned and paid for by the Liberian govt that assess donor performance incl the FAO in the agriculture sector?
RE: Can visual tools help evaluators communicate and engage better?
Dear Musa,
Your point on donor-led evaluation and its consequences are largely correct - Dahler-Larsen's evaluation machines.
"Steering, control, accountability, and predictability come back on the throne. The purpose of evaluation is no longer to stimulate endless discussions in society, but to prevent them."
Thing is, donors pay for and design them. What does this say about evaluation capacity within donor agencies? And I'm not referring to academic expertise on methodology (the supply side, rather the politics of the demand side).
For example, DFID's, now FCDO, evaluation function has never been independent - it's been hidden under the broader research function - with inevitable consequence. Tony Blair was proud of his lack of adaptability in not having a reverse gear or changing course. No surprise that an independent review rated DFID as red on learning and found that
“Staff report that they sometimes are asked to use evidence selectively in order to justify decisions.”
It is often the most rigid and bureaucratic organisations that congratulate themselves on being a learning organisation. This happened, not because DFID did not have many excellent and competent staff, rather because of how powerful political and institutional imperatives crowd out time to think, reflect and be honest.
As an aside, have you /do you know of any "evaluations" commissioned and paid for by the Liberian govt that assess donor performance incl the FAO in the agriculture sector?