Drishti Centre for Integral Action, Integral ME Framework


 

Gail Hochachka and Sandra Thomson.  2009. “Toward an Integral Monitoring and Evaluation.” Drishti Centre for Integral Action.  

 

The Integral Research approach draws from mixed methods combining action research with Integral theory (Wilber 2000), specifically focusing on evaluating systems change, behavioral change, cultural change, and personal change related to capacity building for sustainable development. Hochachaka and Thomson (2009) detail their project developing an Integral Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to evaluate and monitor the integral capacity development approach in an environmental conservation and sustainable livelihoods project for the rural poor in Peru. Integral research (Wilber, 2000; Esbjörn-Hargens, 2006; Hochachka, 2008) draws on at least six lines of inquiry with various methods associated with each phase.[1]

 

 

  1. Reflective inquiry (related to self-reflection and interior dynamics) 
    Methods: Perspective-taking practice, journaling, and meditative inquiry
  2.  Developmental inquiry (values, attitudes, and self-identity) 
    Methods: Personal interviews, understanding individual meaning making
  3.  Interpretive inquiry (participation, local meaning, and cultural relevance)
    Methods: Focus groups
  4.  Ethno-methodological inquiry (social dynamics, social discourse, and worldviews)
    Method: Participant observation, assessment of shifts in ‘social center of gravity’, term relates to how a group’s social discourse changes over time
  5. Empirical inquiry (behavioral change and change in land use practices)
    Method: Empirical assessments, quantitative methodologies, ranking
  6. Systems inquiry (ecosystems, socio-political systems, economic systems, communications systems)
    Method: Empirical assessments, quantitative methodologies, ranking

 

Strengths:

 

 

Weaknesses (or not designed for):

 

 


[1]  This research focused on lines of inquiry 3-6.