an Eldis Resource

This is the first report of a pilot project seeking to examine the current state and utilisation of evaluation in conflict resolution interventions. Report argues for an increased awareness of the need for and value of evaluation as a contributory factor in improving conflict intervention programmes. Findings of the report acknowledge that:

• evaluations are conducted for a variety of reasons. Practitioners tend to engage in evaluation for the purposes of learning and in order to fulfil funding requirements. Conversely, funders are motivated by a need to review funding allocations and to ensure that agency goals are being met. These different motivations can cause frustrations when the end results of the evaluation only serve the requirements of one of the parties
• practitioners tend to conduct evaluations at the level of individual interventions whereas funders usually perform evaluations of a cluster of projects based on a particular theme or geographic commonality. Because of the use of different levels of analysis for evaluations, there are frequently misunderstandings and differing expectations in terms of what the final evaluation results will offer
• all stakeholders considered the measurement of the intangible changes in attitude and perception that are an important part of peace work a particular challenge for which they had limited tools and resources.
• there is a preference for external evaluators as they are seen to be unbiased, legitimate and transparent. However, a number of practitioners expressed the desire to learn about alternative methods, such as self and participatory evaluation
• unlike in other fields, there is no training available in conflict-resolution specific evaluation methods. Many evaluators have some knowledge of social sciencemethodology but they rely on their own experience to learn about the challenges of working in conflict

Authors suggest that a number of questions and challenges need to be addressed, including:

• conflict context: how can the ongoing changes in the context in which an intervention is operating be reflected in the evaluation process?
• freedom to acknowledge failure: Is there an affirmative culture in conflict resolution whereby it is unacceptable to admit that interventions did not go as well as intended?
• positive and negative unintended effects: If unintended effects of an intervention are found during the evaluation process, how should they be balanced or weighed against the intended effects?
• macroevaluation: do individual interventions on the ground synergise to contribute to the development of a peaceful society? If so, how does this process occur?
• concept of success: there is no clear definition of what constitutes ‘success’ in conflict resolution, so how do we know when an intervention has been successful?

See also companion report, The Evaluation of Conflict Resolution: Part II: Emerging Practice and Theory.

• Full text of document
• Publisher details
• Send to a friend