Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

2.3 Limitations
A range of limiting factors has influenced the evaluation and its final product, but not to the point of
undermining the team’s confidence in its findings. The entire evaluation (from design to report
writing) was conducted in 26 days, resulting in a demanding pace throughout. The team usually felt
rushed, constantly trying not to fall behind schedule. That said, there were numerous logistic
delays coupled with routine waits as focus groups accumulated a quorum of more than half its total
members. Although trained previously in the RRA tools (except wealth ranking), staff never had
opportunity to apply them, resulting in periodic uncertainty or conversational drift away from the
session objectives during some focus groups. Participants too were busy as first season rains
commenced on the same day as the team’s preparatory workshop, meaning that many were
preoccupied with opening land (typically by hand) and preparing to plant. Translation between
participants and the evaluator added time and complexity to the discussions. Behind all of this, the
quantitative secondary data from FAO and ACF both had inconsistencies and gaps that sometimes
raised as many questions as they answered. Internally there is a dearth of programmatic
documentation available for review, with all of the Lira Base 2008 hard copy FFS programme files
already in storage. It similarly appears that no photographs of 2008 FFS programme participants,
locations, or activities were taken for visual documentation. More time for methodological
documentation of the RRA tool processes and lessons would also have been constructive for other
practitioners.
Despite these considerations the team remains confident in the validity of its analysis, and the
evaluator in its process. The quantitative data by necessity were assumed to be reliable. The
analysis remains largely concentrated at the FFS group level rather than with participant
households, the result of both basing the fieldwork entirely around focus groups and timing it while
no crops were standing meant individual gardens could not be visited to witness the extent to
which particular practices have been applied and transferred since the programme concluded last
year. In retrospect more time was needed for consulting team members directly as key informants
and engaging them with the secondary data. More time with the team also would have enhanced
the learning opportunity futher. A shorter report would have increased its programmatic relevance
and accessibility to a wider range of staff and stakeholders.
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 18 - Farmer Field School Evaluation