- Cheyanne Church (2008), Peacebuilding evaluation. From infancy to teenager (Editorial), in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 3-6. (http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf). This short article provides an introdcution to some of the key questions in the field of peacebuilding evaluation and highlights phases of its emergence.
- David Bloomfield, Martina Fischer & Beatrix Schmelzle (eds.) (2005), New trends in Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA), in: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, Dialogue Series, No. 4, http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/dialogue4_pcianew_complete.pdf. This is the second Berghof Handbook dialogue that focuses on so-called Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment - PCIA. Among the contributing authors are Kenneth Bush and Thania Paffenholz. The dialogue provides a good overview over the debate in the field.
- Mary B. Anderson (2000, edited 2004): Experiences with impact assessment. Can we know what good we do?, in: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/anderson_handbook.pdf. This article considers how international agencies providing humanitarian assistance, development aid and/or support to peace processes can understand what their impacts are. The article builds on a collaborative learning project and identifies two major challenges: 1) selecting criteria or indicators for assessing progress; and 2) determining attribution.
- Mark Hoffman (2001, revised 2004), Peace and conflict impact assessment methodology, in: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/hoffman_handbook.pdf This articles reviews the state-of-the-art in evaluation, focusing on peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA) methodology from three perspectives: traditional donor evaluations; assessment methodologies in development work; evaluations of conflict resolution and peacebuilding NGOs.
- Reina C. Neufeldt (2007), "Frameworkers" and "Circlers" - Exploring assumptions in peace and conflict impact assessment, in: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, in: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/neufeldt_handbook.pdf. This article unpacks some of the hidden hypotheses underlying current assessment methodologies. The author argues that two (ideal type) constituencies interact – and sometimes clash – in development and peacebuilding work. She sets out to clarify their contending perspectives and illustrates ways in which both approaches can enrich each other and further the ultimate task of effective impact monitoring and evaluation.
- Rolf Sartorius and Christopher Carver (2006), Monitoring, evaluation and learning for fragile states and peacebuilding programs. Practical tools for improving program performance and results, Social Impact, Washington DC, in: http://www.socialimpact.com/resource-center/downloads/fragilestates.pdf. The purpose of this guide is to increase the effectiveness of fragile states and peacebuilding programmes through better and more systematic approaches to monitoring, evaluation and learning (ME & L).
- Outcome Mapping and Most-Significant Change technique
- Rick Davies/Jess Dart, The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique. A Guide to Its Use, April 2005. <http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf> (accessed 8 May 2009). The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. The process involves essentially the collection of significant change stories emanating from the field level.
- Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)
- Natalia Ortiz/Javier Pacheco, Outcome Mapping (OM) and Results-based Management (RBM). A Preliminary Study, powerpoint presentation given in Lima, Peru, October 2004. <www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11126276511natalia__om_rbm%5B1%5D_copy.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)
- Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)
- Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009)
- Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May) as well as own ideas.
|
| - You can use any of the Content Processing Activities for introducing the contents in the left column without just lecturing and keeping them active.
- Envelopes. This is another brainstorming activity, that helps you to get started with the topic as well as record pre-training experience and knowledge.
- Opportunities and challenges. This activity can be combined with the content "Results-based management for peacebuilding initiatives: opportunities and challenges. Participants are asked to debate, one group taking a positive, one a negative and one a neutral stance. The neutral group decides who won the debate.
- Tell us about the most significant change. This activity is inspired by the Most-Signficant Change Technique and asks participants to think about a significant change in one of their projects. The activity aims at raising awareness for the need for multiple lenses to see change.
|
Share this
