Jump to content

an Eldis Resource

The evaluation of conflict resolution interventions, part II: emerging practice and theory

Improving the evaluation process in conflict resolutions intervention

Authors: C. Church; J. Shouldice
Publisher: Initiative on Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity , 2003

Full text of document

This paper results from a group discussion on the emerging issues raised in the first phase of INCORE's research on the evaluation of conflict resolution interventions.

The paper seeks to summarise thinking on a number of the challenges that have been encountered by conflict resolution evaluators in the hopes of enhancing evaluation practice and therefore its potential contribution to this field.

Those who are actively engaged in this work highlighted two areas for consideration - the evaluator and politics:

  • the Evaluator:
    • a CR evaluator can take on different roles depending on the goal or purpose of the evaluation
    • level of engagement: there is also a spectrum of engagement between the evaluator and the project. At one end is the external evaluator with no previous interaction with the project. At the other end is self-evaluation, conducted by people internal to the project
    • ethical responsibilities: an evaluator has the responsibility both to do no harm and to examine whether the evaluation itself is ethically responsible. Developing a code of conduct for CR evaluators is onepossible way in which this challenge could be addressed
  • Politics
    • politics of selection: decisions about factors such as when the evaluation is undertaken, the duration, questions to be answered and the type of feedback process, can be politically motivated. This can affect the credibility and value of the evaluation’s findings. However, in some circumstances, these decisions are made out of expediency or ignorance, rather than political motives. In such cases, awareness of this challenge is a useful tool for mitigation
    • politics of dissemination: the issue of who owns the evaluation and who determines its distribution can affect the information that is provided through the process

    Through discussion with experienced evaluators, practitioners and funders, gaps in the theoretical understanding of conflict resolution emerged:

    • micro-macro connection: an important issue for the field to address is if, and if so, how, change is effected beyond the direct participants in a project. By examining 'whom' the project seeks to change or influence as a base, it becomes possible to determine whether other tiers (individual, community, society or nation) are also influenced through the work
    Finally the dicussions concluded that many of the theories and assumptions that underlie conflict resolution work are not articulated or explored in the evaluation process. Yet, incorporating this aspect into evaluation could help determine whether project underachievement is due to poor implementation or conceptual inaccuracies in the project design.

    In order to assist with this process, definitions of key concepts were clarified:

    • theories of conflict - determine the origin(s) or cause(s) of conflict
    • theories of conflict resolution - consider what needs to happen to bring about the resolution of a conflict and therefore set the overarching goal of what one is trying to achieve
    • theories of practice - establish a method or strategy for addressing a conflict
    • theories of change are generalised beliefs about how and why widespread change can be generated in a violent conflict
    • working assumptions about change - refer to specific assumptions made at the level of project design and implementation about the transformative effect of each discrete action/activity

    [adapted from authors]

    • document information