I ought to have said ‘acting in silos’ since thinking is an action. Well, it’s a phrase someone invented during the discussions that led to the determination of the current set of SDG’s. After all, it just another phrase to describe reductivist thought and action, just like calling a spade a field entrenching tool (US army).
Before I go further, let me recap my point of departure:
A sound evaluation of a proposed or achieved outcome of a project/plan is concerned with ascertaining its adequacy to serve its intended purpose under the circumstances in which it is carried out.
Obviously, the key-words here are its ‘adequacy’ and ‘the circumstances under which it is carried out.’ Thus, we have three items to take into account, viz., a fixed one, i.e., an intended purpose or a goal which however may or may not be achieved depending on the very circumstances involved. Let me illustrate this with the help of two examples that appeared on this forum for a while ago. One involves a billion Dollar bridge to link up an island with the mainland in an affluent Northern European country while the second is a multi-million dollar highway in an African country.
Both were very adequate qualitatively and quantitatively; their technical quality was excellent while their capacity was large. In both instances, some critical circumstances were totally ignored leading to their failure with respect to their intended aims. Here, the reductive approach made quality and quantity work against project goals.
What happened was this; that bridge was intended to enable the residents of the island to drive to work in a town on the mainland in all weathers, which would be easier than using the ferry to do so as they have been doing. Toll from this commute was hoped to cover the building and running expenses of the bridge.
But as soon as it was completed, the islanders used the bridge to move out of the island and settle down near their work place and using their old homes as summer houses! So, nothing more needs to be said about the relevance of quality and quantity here, for the planners did not consider the circumstance that the islanders might just move out. They were compelled to remain, because the ferry is not a convenient means to move house.
In the case of the highway, the purpose was to initiate an economic growth in the villages through which it passed. It was believed to help the villagers to move their produce to better markets and the investors to come in.
But the planners failed to notice the circumstance that the villagers did not have even a bare minimum of motor transport and the poverty of the area remains unchanged while an occasional goat enjoys an undisturbed stroll on a modern highway.
So, the adequacy of an outcome has a qualitative and a quantitative component which are governed by the relevant circumstances under which a project or a plan is carried out. In my previous note, I pointed out that the emergency food supplies to a disaster area cannot reasonably meet the same standards of quality or quantity, and they would have to be adjusted to make the supply adequate under those circumstances
RE: How are mixed methods used in programme evaluation?
Greetings!
I ought to have said ‘acting in silos’ since thinking is an action. Well, it’s a phrase someone invented during the discussions that led to the determination of the current set of SDG’s. After all, it just another phrase to describe reductivist thought and action, just like calling a spade a field entrenching tool (US army).
Before I go further, let me recap my point of departure:
A sound evaluation of a proposed or achieved outcome of a project/plan is concerned with ascertaining its adequacy to serve its intended purpose under the circumstances in which it is carried out.
Obviously, the key-words here are its ‘adequacy’ and ‘the circumstances under which it is carried out.’ Thus, we have three items to take into account, viz., a fixed one, i.e., an intended purpose or a goal which however may or may not be achieved depending on the very circumstances involved. Let me illustrate this with the help of two examples that appeared on this forum for a while ago. One involves a billion Dollar bridge to link up an island with the mainland in an affluent Northern European country while the second is a multi-million dollar highway in an African country.
Both were very adequate qualitatively and quantitatively; their technical quality was excellent while their capacity was large. In both instances, some critical circumstances were totally ignored leading to their failure with respect to their intended aims. Here, the reductive approach made quality and quantity work against project goals.
What happened was this; that bridge was intended to enable the residents of the island to drive to work in a town on the mainland in all weathers, which would be easier than using the ferry to do so as they have been doing. Toll from this commute was hoped to cover the building and running expenses of the bridge.
But as soon as it was completed, the islanders used the bridge to move out of the island and settle down near their work place and using their old homes as summer houses! So, nothing more needs to be said about the relevance of quality and quantity here, for the planners did not consider the circumstance that the islanders might just move out. They were compelled to remain, because the ferry is not a convenient means to move house.
In the case of the highway, the purpose was to initiate an economic growth in the villages through which it passed. It was believed to help the villagers to move their produce to better markets and the investors to come in.
But the planners failed to notice the circumstance that the villagers did not have even a bare minimum of motor transport and the poverty of the area remains unchanged while an occasional goat enjoys an undisturbed stroll on a modern highway.
So, the adequacy of an outcome has a qualitative and a quantitative component which are governed by the relevant circumstances under which a project or a plan is carried out. In my previous note, I pointed out that the emergency food supplies to a disaster area cannot reasonably meet the same standards of quality or quantity, and they would have to be adjusted to make the supply adequate under those circumstances
Hope this makes my points a bit clearer.
Cheers!
Lal.