Introduction
Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) involves all stakeholders in the monitoring and assessing a project by implementing a collaborative approach (Rahman, 2019). Participatory M&E has garnered increasing attention in the 21st century, and various development institutions, funding bodies, and non-governmental organizations are incorporating the concepts into their policy frameworks (Kaur & Kaur, 2019). Participation in development projects involves people who can collaborate with analysts to examine problems and create solutions based on objectives. However, participatory M&E has become popular in the monitoring and evaluation industry because of the drawbacks of conventional M&E (Holte-McKenzie et al., 2006). Participatory M&E values the opinions of many stakeholders and supports enhancing their abilities so that they can actively participate in enhancing project performance based on community-level inputs (Singh et al., 2017).
Additionally, participatory M&E has grown increasingly accepted, although the approach is still not commonly applied in development projects (Arnstein, 1969). Critics argue that when it comes to external validity and rigor evaluations, participatory M&E lacks professional legitimacy. Whereas participatory approaches primarily use qualitative data and are considered context-specific, locally valuable, easily usable, and subjective, conventional approaches are credited with higher degrees of rigor, validity, objectivity, and replicability (Jacobs et al., 2010). Nevertheless, participatory M&E supporters argue that such an approach can be seen as a source of rigor because it is more accurate in terms of knowledge generation and the experiences of individuals. Furthermore, Mayoux and Chambers (2005) stated that participatory M&E reduces biases and misinterpretations of data, increasing the rigor and reliability of analysis when adequately supported. This essay argues that while participatory M&E presents several challenges and issues, it offers several benefits over conventional M&E and there are multiple strategies to address the issue of lack of rigor and improve the evaluation’s rigor.
Participatory M & E Principles
All project personnel and stakeholders are involved in PM&E with the goal of achieving project objectives and ensuring optimal resource usage. It also employs quantitative approaches as well, such as a community survey that is accessible locally and involves participation, in along with participatory approaches including interviews, audiovisual, and a number of collaborative techniques (Singh et al., 2017). Even though participatory M&E practices vary greatly, involvement, learning, negotiation, and adaptability can be used to broadly classify the concepts of M&E plan.
Primarily, the approach is unique compared to the standard approach because it places greater focus on engagement and contribution (Guerra-López & Hicks, 2015). The fundamental idea behind this participatory approach is to provide all parties involved a sense of personal responsibility and to empower the process’ beneficiaries. In the long term, participatory M & E has moved the focus from assessments that are data-oriented to evaluations that are reasonably open and democratic (Guijt, 2014). The evaluation team’s strong feeling of commitment and confidence in the inherent ability of the local population enhance the significance of the participatory M&E process. The key takeaway is to recognize that the participation of various stakeholders improves the reliability and validity of the findings.
Additionally, the combination of capacity building and active involvement might improve what is perhaps the primary fundamental principle of participatory M&E, which is the concept of learning (Fross et al., 2006). As a result, participatory M&E becomes a practice in developing and building an innovative learning platform. As the methodological actions of participatory methods in each phase are a larger means of learning, the learning principle creates an organized manner of generating knowledge (McIntyre, 2002).
Furthermore, stakeholders can collaborate to determine the evaluation’s focus due to the negotiation concept (Holte-McKenzie et al., 2006). It recognizes the discussion amongst stakeholders to come to a consensus on the evaluation’s results and develop future plans for enhancing performance. Considering participatory M&E is inclusive, bargaining is essential to building participants’ mutual trust and influencing their perspectives in order to complete the assigned work effectively. In addition, the ability to negotiate effectively addresses the problem of unequal relationships of power.
Moreover, it is believed that the flexibility concept is an essential element of participatory M&E. It constantly changing and adapting to the needs of stakeholders and the particulars of each project and context because it lacks a set format (Estrella and Gaventa 1998, p. 26). Additionally, participatory M & E matches stakeholders’ needs, abilities, and resources through innovative techniques, enhancing their potential to take initiative and advance the desired improvements (Zukoski and Luluquisen 2002).
Rigour or participation Dilemma
According to Cypress (2017), rigor refers to the trait of being extremely methodical, dependable, legitimate, and accurate. It is typically connected to a positivistic perspective on science, which emphasizes truths verified by quantifiable data (Frauenberger et al. 2015). On the contrary, participation typically refers to a program’s sustainability and sense of ownership (Guerra-López & Hicks, 2015). Stakeholders have been tried to be involved in the planning and execution phases of development programs by an extensive range of developmental groups, particularly NGOs and government entities. It’s actually not necessary for the terms rigorous and participation to be mutually exclusive because it’s possible to include several forms of evaluation in a single project. There are ongoing discussions and conundrums regarding the PM&E approach’s reliability and rigor (Frauenberger et al., 2015). The lack of rigor and disregard for scientific principles in terms of methodology, data collecting, and interpretation is why detractors target PM&E in particular. Increasing local and unskilled people participating in the evaluation process is expected to degrade the evaluation’s quality and reliability. Additionally, it is considered to be less accurate due to its subjectivity and potential for prejudice because PM&E reacts to specific community members (Guerra-López & Hicks, 2015). On the contrary, proponents of PM&E believe that community participation enhances the evaluation’s significance, dependability, and credibility compared to approaches that merely satisfy scientific requirements, squandering time and money. Proponents of PM&E discuss empowerment and change. Any development project must be sustainable and financially feasible for the recipients on a local level, and to do so, capacity building and participation are essential components of the process.
However, the subject of which partner views rigor differently raises the issue of rigor and credibility in particular due to the partners’ divergent perspectives and expectations (Frauenberger et al., 2015). The reliability of the inquiry is mostly determined by the information source. For instance, farmers and NGO personnel believed that despite facts showing that contour farming improves soil moisture, individuals would not be encouraged to adopt the practice (Kaur & Kaur, 2019). However, a statement from 18 out of 20 farmers inspired the remaining farmers to adopt contour farming. Additionally, Vernooy et al. (2006) investigated at how the PM&E approach contributed to improve the ability, trust, and accountability among local authorities, researchers, and villagers in a water resource management project in Yunnan province in South-West China. The results ultimately led to the local community managing and using its resources. As a result, the PM&E technique can guarantee the quality and rigor of the study while also facilitating local engagement.
The M&E’s unique objectives will determine whether or not both rigor and participation are confirmed (Guijt, 2014). Regarding the PM&E strategy, there are multiple ways to address the unresolved question of rigor or participation. Expert program staff members can contribute to improving the evaluation process by critically analyzing and identifying the stakeholders, which is one way to make the results externally legitimate. Comparably, Lemaire and Savage (2012) also noted a number of elements in enhancing the rigor and caliber of the assessment, including: efficient participation; various forms of communication; establishing reciprocal trust with the public to obtain high-quality data; and communicating to and empowering each of the participant groups.
Research by Kibukho (2021) demonstrated that, establishing suitable techniques, creating indicators, and upholding scientific norms are a few more possibilities. The rigor and impartiality of the evaluation are greatly enhanced by the employment of various techniques and information sources (Synowiec et al., 2023). Additionally, there is room to include the conclusions in the data-gathering procedure and develop a follow-up on the data that is produced during that procedure (Mayoux and Chambers 2005). Additionally, the participatory technique itself can generate information, tables, and statistics comparable to those produced by other methods now in use when the technique is effectively assisted by knowledgeable and competent evaluators (Lemaire & Savage, 2012). The participatory approach works well when gathering data and interpreting information using quantitative methods in addition to being suitable for the qualitative technique. Accordingly, participatory methods can also enhance them in addition to standardizing other approaches (Mayoux and Chambers 2005).
A different alternative necessitates a thorough examination of the stakeholders’ experience, training, and knowledge as well as their inclusion into all phases of the review process (Bell & Marais, 2014). To retain the rigor of the study, the approach requires skilled and qualified facilitators. These facilitators can provide statistics, tables, and diagrams, as well as facilitate the participation process in a more meaningful and effective manner. Nonetheless, the creation of indicators, context-specific and adaptable methodologies, and above all the active involvement of many stakeholders in the entire M&E process are all crucial to striking a balance between rigor and participation (Guijt 2014; Synowiec et al., 2023). As a result, the different kinds of instruments that are employed and how to analyze, evaluate, and integrate the results into decision-making processes.
Challenges and Issues in Participatory M&E Practices
Participation Quality
Holte-McKenzie et al. (2006) notes that , one of the fundamental tenets of PM&E is collaboration and participation. However, implementing the idea into practice is really difficult because none of the process participants fully understands the notion or is aware of their level of participation. The approach naturally encounters challenges in identifying the stakeholders and assigning their roles and obligations at every phase of the evaluation the method because it involves numerous people or teams (Jacobs et al., 2010). In addition, participation fluctuates across the participatory M&E and project cycles. For example, the local community appears to be highly involved during the data gathering stage, but typically becomes less engaged in the subsequent phases of data analysis and distribution, as well as in the initial phases of planning and designing. As a result, involving the local population exclusively during the data-gathering phase prevents them from experiencing empowerment and reduces participatory M&E to an extractive practice (Guijt, 2014).
The stakeholders’ capacity development presents a different challenge (Frauenberger et al., 2015). From the outset of the review process, capacity building is implemented in the areas of language, terminology comprehension, roles and duties, layers of indicators, risk and vulnerabilities, and so on (Johnson, 2000). Due to the numerous stakeholders, their varying needs, and the possibility of differing levels of knowledge, perspective, education, and competence, it becomes a challenge to train each stakeholder. Additionally, the process is expensive when it comes to time, funds, and various other resources. The participatory M &E relies on facilitators who must get to know the participants and establish a rapport based on mutual trust for reliable data. The M&E process will be challenging if the facilitators lack the expertise to choose the appropriate procedures and measuring indicators.
Inequitable power dynamics
The inherent effects of participatory evaluation on power dynamics give rise to conflict since it has the potential to elevate certain individuals at the expense of disempowering others (Parkinson, 2009). Powerful stakeholders may utilize their clout to commandeer resources intended for other individuals (Boadu & Ile, 2019). Project staff and facilitators may feel threatened by participatory M&E because it allows them to negotiate evaluation objectives, measurements, and procedures, which may cause them to lose power and control over other influential stakeholders. Therefore, rather than resolving conflicts, evaluation may actually cause them. However, PM&E is seen in the context of international development as a means of fostering group learning and giving marginalized voices a voice so that economic and social programs can benefit the community (Boadu & Ile, 2019). For example, a case study of a large-scale rural development effort in Europe shows that there was miscommunication between project staff and farmers regarding perceptions and assumptions, and that tensions arose from disparities in power between program staff members and farmers as well as between farmers of various statuses (Parkinson, 2009).
The Issue Methodology
The development of indicators, data analysis, and participatory approaches at various levels is related to the methodological issue (Guijt, 2014). Opponents contend that adopting PM&E over the conventional strategy only entails accepting “trade-offs” between involvement and rigor (Gaventa et al., 1998; Guijt, 2014). While qualitative methods employed in the participatory approach are subjective yet locally relevant, it is commonly considered that the quantitative approaches used in the conventional approach typically yield data that has an appropriate level of rigor. However, if the program requires it, a quantitative method can also be applied in the participatory M&E (Mayoux & Chambers, 2005). The objective of the assessment and interpretation of information and statistics should take precedence over the argument between qualitative and quantitative methods (Jacobs et al., 2010). The aims of the M&E process itself typically determine how rigor and participation are balanced. For example, if scientific standards and dependability are needed, more traditional approaches may be used; in contrast, flexible and qualitative techniques may be given precedence when learning is the main focus (Guijt, 2014). However, combining several methodologies in participatory M&E could be troublesome because it aims to take into account the demands of various stakeholders.
Additionally, there is a rigorous and exact formulation and selection of indicators, which involves several stakeholder groups. According to (Mayoux & Chambers, 2005), PM&E places a strong emphasis on the creation of indicators that satisfy the various needs of the many stakeholders participating in the project assessment. Additionally, indicators should be created in a way that allows them to measure short- and long-term changes, changes at both the local and larger scales, qualitative and quantitative data, and both tangible and intangible project impacts (Mayoux & Chambers, 2005). Although choosing indicators can be challenging because there is a lot of data and different groups of people. Nevertheless, as the development goal, needs, and indicators are subject to change, technique adaptability is essential. For example, Von Bertrab and Zambrano (2010) identified an evaluation framework that allows for the systematic recording of data based on flexible indicators in the participatory evaluation of farmer-led projects in Mexico. The process primarily involved three stakeholder groups: farmers, farmer-extensionists, and funders. Additionally, analysts believe that the growth of leadership, collaboration, and M&E procedures were given weight by signs that emerged from the community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the participatory M&E has grown into increasingly mainstream area of exploration within M&E over time. The significance of participation has been accepted by communities, experts, and benefactors alike. The approach treats the stakeholders as contributing actors rather than passively information sources, and it impacts the learning of the analysts. Nevertheless, methodological problems, a lack of scientific rigor, and concerns about the social implications of participation have all been raised against participatory M&E. Project Management and Evaluation needs to have an extensive understanding of the responsibilities that various participants play to reduce impediments and maximize the benefits of the participatory approach. Additionally, it necessitates giving serious consideration to the methodologies chosen, the different types of data required, the creation of appropriate indicators, and the anticipated application of the assessment data. Participatory M&E has the potential to yield greater diversity and pertinent insights, but it also presents several real-world issues that must be methodically resolved to guarantee the validity and worth of the process and the outcomes. Organizations that develop and put into practice participatory M&E projects need to give careful consideration to their situation, resources, and objectives. Thus, despite particular PM&E issues and challenges, there are a lot of opportunities to strike a balance between participation and rigor.
References
Bell, J. S., & Marais, D. (2014). Participatory Training in Monitoring and Evaluation for Maternal and Newborn Health Programmes. Global Journal of Health Science, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p192
Boadu, E. S., & Ile, I. (2019). Between power and perception: Understanding youth perspectives in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) in Ghana. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101683
Forss, K., Kruse, S.-E., Taut, S., & Tenden, E. (2006). Chasing a Ghost? An Essay on Participatory Evaluation and Capacity Development’. Evaluation, 12(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389006064190
Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Fitzpatrick, G., & Iversen, O. S. (2015). In pursuit of rigor and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004
Gaventa, J., Creed, V., & Morrissey, J. (1998). Scaling up: Participatory monitoring and evaluation of a federal empowerment program. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1119
Guerra-López, I., & Hicks, K. (2015). The participatory design of a performance-oriented monitoring and evaluation system in an international development environment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.09.003
Guijt, I. (2014). Participatory Approaches: Methodological Briefs – Impact Evaluation No. 5. Ideas.repec.org. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/metbri/innpub750.html
Holte-McKenzie, M., Forde, S., & Theobald, S. (2006). Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(4), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007
House, J., Kleiber, D., Steenbergen, D. J., & Stacey, N. (2022). Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01783-3
Jacobs, A., Barnett, C., & Ponsford, R. (2010). Three Approaches to Monitoring: Feedback Systems, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Logical Frameworks. IDS Bulletin, 41(6), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00180.x
Kaur, L., & Kaur, S. (2019). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in extension programmes. Asian Journal of Home Science, 14(2), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.15740/has/ajhs/14.2/458-462
Kibukho, K. (2021). Mediating role of citizen empowerment in the relationship between participatory monitoring and evaluation and social sustainability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 85, 101911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101911
Lemaire, I., & Savage, R. (2012). Monitoring and evaluating a knowledge management initiative: Participatory Video for monitoring and evaluation. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 8(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2012.686116
Matsiliza, N. (2012). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Reviewing an Inclusive Approach in the South Africa’s Government Wide Monitoring and Evaluation. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 1(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v1i2.31
Mayoux, L., & Chambers, R. (2005). Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment. Journal of International Development, 17(2), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1214
McIntyre, J. (2002). Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2(1), 62–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719×0200200114
Parkinson, S. (2009). Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.03.003
Rahman, Md. L. (2019). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in development projects of Bangladesh. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 11(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpom.2019.10022112
Singh, K., Chandurkar, D., & Dutt, V. (2017). A Practitioners’ Manual on Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Projects. In Google Books. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Suárez-Herrera, J. C., Springett, J., & Kagan, C. (2009). Critical Connections between Participatory Evaluation, Organizational Learning and Intentional Change in Pluralistic Organizations. Evaluation, 15(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389009105884
Synowiec, C., Fletcher, E., Heinkel, L., & Salisbury, T. (2023). Getting Rigor Right: A Framework for Methodological Choice in Adaptive Monitoring and Evaluation. Global Health: Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00243
Vernooy, R., Qiu, S., & Jianchu, X. (2006). The Power of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Insights from South-West China. Development in Practice, 16(5), 400–411. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4030036
Von Bertrab, A., & Zambrano, L. (2010). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of a Mexico City Wetland Restoration Effort. Ecological Restoration, 28(3), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.28.3.343
write