Development projects in assessing empowerment

Abstract

This paper by Salil Shetty examines the conventional monitoring and evaluation approaches in development projects, provides its critiques, and explores alternative methodologies for assessing empowerment. The paper analyses and traces the evolution of the idea of conventional Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) from its roots in the Logical Framework Approach, with formal M&E mechanisms being set up in the early 1950s and rising in the 1970s. It documents how M&E efforts initially focused on physical inputs, outputs, and financial expenditure, but the failure of many development projects, and the emergence of the Basic Needs movement led to the addition of new management tools like Social Impact indicators. These efforts with participatory elements are however, noted to be under-researched. The paper presents a comprehensive critique of conventional M&E models, mainly from scholars who recognise the experimental nature of development projects and the unavailability of standard measures in social sciences. It also challenges the position of conventional M&E systems on the claims of reliability and validity, the claim of objectivity, and the claim of causality. Consequently, it talks about the rise of an alternative paradigm, which relies on naturalistic inquiry, subjectivist epistemology, and is holistic. The paper concludes by introducing participatory action research as a major stream of evaluation that also highlights Maguire's feminist critique that participatory research was itself steeped in patriarchy.