The review approach

A review that…

complexity

Builds on what has been done so far:

There a lot of effort is already gone in looking at the work done in Nepal. Organizations produced reports. Other evaluations (in particular the DEC/HC mid-term evaluation) already took place. We want to build on that. In doing so, the review will focus on two main areas flagged out as challenging in previous work: gender/inclusion and accountability to beneficiaries.

appreciative

Is appreciative:

this review is not designed to “find problems”. It is designed to support the desire and ambition of organizations and staff to do better. It is keen to highlight what has worked: what innovations, what adaptations, what ideas are worth sharing. And to capture the efforts of organizations and staff in overcoming challenges, to better appreciate achievements.

 complexity

It is process-oriented and recognizes complexity:

The review does stop at looking at what was done. It looks at how it was done. Quality of interventions relies on “soft” components (e.g. participation, empowerment, dignity, inclusion) – which can only be understood by looking at interventions unfolded.

dialogue

It is a listening, facilitative one:

It recognizes that the key stakeholders in humanitarian work (in particular affected people, field staff) have a lot to share. Very often also humanitarian review – often lack the time to engage in in-depth conversation with people. The methodology will focus on less but deep: long interviews / focus groups. Conversations will be open and driven by curiosity: “what had changed for you? How? Why does this matter?” to explore process of change. And they will be open to discover unexpected outcomes

deep.png

It is deep, rather than broad:

It focuses on few, but deeply explored cases, rather than spreading thin. It keeps  meaning, context, diversity, insights.

video

Captures the voices of people:

we will use video to capture the highlights of our conversation with people on the ground (in particular affected communities and the fieldworkers working closely with them). As much as possible, the findings will be presented in their voice.

 learning

Is focused on learning:

We hope that the review will be an opportunity to share learning and identify innovations. We also hope that the review can capture the ideas, insights, contextual information that get lost in conventional reporting, and can inform 1) future response and 2) a better understanding of the existing one – to sensitize external stakeholders.

audiences

Communicates with diverse audiences:

we will seek to communicate the findings of this reviews in diverse ways. We hope to involve different stakeholders: the participating organizations but also the supporters in Canada. We hope that this will be an opportunity to show the complexity of the response, the context where it happens, and the added value of the organizations engaging in it.

 forward looking

It is forward looking

We hope that the evaluation will not stop at “look back to check if the results are achieved” fail to capitalize on the learning, the knowledge that has been acquired throughout the project. The review hopes to be a stimulus to thin “where can we go from here”, revising expected results and acknowledging new opportunities and challenges.

 

Advertisements