Marisol, Estrella and John Gaventa. 1998. “Who Counts Reality? Participatory monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review.” IDS Working paper No. 70.

Participatory approaches to M&E engender participation, learning, negotiation, and flexibility. Participatory M&E engages a variety of stakeholders in the evaluation process and in particular, those closest to the development program or project. This form of participation respects local diversities and grassroots knowledge, making the end product more relevant to the community’s needs and interests. This form of M&E focuses on learning, both at the individual and collective level, as stakeholders aim to better understand the context, the strengths and weaknesses of their approach and strategies, and their underlying visions for social change. This learning supports in-depth capacity building as well as organizational and programmatic strengthening. The evaluation setting presents a context where different interests and perspectives are shared and negotiated, offering opportunities to transform power relations and discuss viewpoints that are normally not represented. This becomes particularly apparent during measurement and indicator development. Finally, participatory M&E is flexible and adaptable to local developments and shifts in implementation or in the context. For a better understanding of how participatory processes work, see the diagram below, which has been reproduced from Gujit and Gaventa 1998.  



Strengths: 

• When evaluating in cross-cultural contexts, participatory evaluation can improve evaluation design, relevancy, and utilization of evaluation techniques within organizations (see Mathur, Mehta, & Malhotra, 2004; Patton, 1997).[1] 
• Transforms conventional power relations between the evaluators and the grassroots.
• Engages participants in iterative critical reflection cycles, which increases individual and collective capacity for learning. 
• Offers mechanisms for better understanding programs and their impact, creating possibilities for programmatic learning and strengthening. 

Weaknesses (or not designed for):

• The evaluation focus and tools designed will vary immensely depending on the group, experience, and unique interests. 
• Results are not comparable across different organizations due to different evaluation design and indicator development processes.
• There is not necessarily an explicit focus on pathways and constraints to social change.

[1] Evaluators in Nepal (Mathur, Mehta, & Malhotra 2004) compared more traditional experimental evaluation methodologies with participatory evaluation approaches. While both evaluation approaches garnered similar results, individuals involved in the participatory evaluation identified additional social and contextual factors that provided more extensive information in understanding why the program intervention was successful. Not surprisingly, these additional factors were closely related to the social context and individual lives.

Image Source: Gujit, Irene and Gaventa, John. 1998. “Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. Learning from Change.” Institute for Development Studies Policy Briefing. Issue 12. November 1998.