Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

184
donor and recipient technical staff to get on with the studies and provide
the answers. Here there is a real and objective world that can be measured
and where technical values can be placed on the results. Sometimes, ‘what
happened’ approaches can take certain sub-routes which on occasion can be
found together, but not necessarily so. The first of these, ‘what happened –
accountability’, is concerned with providing accurate accounts of what is
taking place and what the results are, so that reports can be made on both
sides about how the aid is being used. This tends to lead to a more managerial
interpretation of projects and programs and the use of statistics and
techniques such as cost benefit analysis. Terms such as objectives, goals, performance
and results are seen as helping to clarify more precisely what was
intended and how to measure whether it took place. How to do this, however,
is very much a technical matter and it can be left to the specialists to
provide the framework.
The second, ‘what happened – learning’, is also technical, but is based on
the view that there are many similarities between evaluation and research
and that in looking at what took place, much can be learned that will help
both ongoing and future activities. Research provides a reference for the
development of ideas and the application of concepts; it refers to that which
is measurable and knowable. It allows for a variety of quantitative and qualitative
techniques that can be discussed and debated in methodological terms
and for which specialists have important contributions to make. Concern
here is often more with the consequences and impact of the results of aid
supported activities; for it is there that there is much to be learned that
could aid future action. Development and change may be difficult processes,
but there are technical solutions.
The third approach can be summed up in the somewhat existential phrase:
‘what does it mean’. This approach shares some of the concerns behind
‘being useful’ but blends these with the research orientation of ‘what happened’.
The result is an investigative and reflective posture that may go in
any direction and where it is expected that what might come out of an
evaluation may be very different from what went in. ‘What does it mean?’
is a question that refers to everything and everybody in all directions over
time; there is no a priori significance for events, nor any assumptions about
a logical and problematic real world. On the contrary complexity and multiple
causality are the starting points for an interpretative process in which
nothing can be taken for granted and in which worldviews are taken as
social constructions. Thus the meaning and realism of goals, of the language
of projects and evaluation are all open to question, as are implicit assumptions
about society, culture, institutions and development itself.
In trying to describe these different ways of looking at evaluation, it was
clear that there were many areas of overlap. People would position themselves
within one and argue about the others; but would do so within a
sense of conviviality that accepted that these were different approaches, but