1 / 20

Participatory Evaluation in Cross-Cultural Settings

This project explores the use of participatory evaluation systems in cross-cultural settings to assess the impact of HIV prevention and mitigation work. The project utilizes both qualitative and quantitative methods, including a Quality of Life survey and the Most Significant Change (MSC) method. The results demonstrate the value of mixed methods in capturing nuanced information and providing personalized reports for donors, partner organizations, and beneficiaries. The project was supported by various government agencies and involved the participation of PSG teams, partner organizations, and field workers.

taylormicheal
Download Presentation

Participatory Evaluation in Cross-Cultural Settings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PSG PROJECT SUPPORT GROUP Using Participatory Evaluation Systems in Cross Cultural Settings Madri Jansen van Rensburg Louise Henderson Gareth Coats

  2. Background: Project Support Group • Regional NGO working in 9 SADC countries • Supports 43 partner organisations doing HIV prevention and mitigation work • Annual surveys conducted to assess impact on communities (Mitigation results reported)

  3. Sample: Mitigation Surveys • Thembalethu – Jeppe’s Reef – Nkomazi (SA) • Thembalethu – Enkambeni – N. Swaziland • Hands@Work - Bairro Josina Machel – Gondola (Mozambique) • Hands@Work - Bairro 7 de Abril - Gondola (Manica Province) • Mpatamathu - Luanshya – Copperbelt (Zambia) • Mpatamathu - Chibwe (Ndola) - Border to DRC (Zambia) • Mangochi - Ntaja – Balaka District (Malawi) • Lesotho - Semonkong – Maseru rural district

  4. Burden of Disease:Chronically Ill

  5. Burden of Disease:Deceased persons

  6. Burden of Disease:Orphans

  7. Mixed methods • Mitigation surveys included both qualitative and quantitative methods for following reasons: • Funders’ request for personalised reports • To give voices to beneficiaries • To use methods that could be translated across cultural, language and country borders • To provide feedback to participants • To empower partner organisations in M&E • NB!!! It had to be cost effective!

  8. Methodology • Two methods: • Quantitative: Quality of Life survey • Qualitative: Most Significant Change (MSC) method • A participatory qualitative method (MSC) was used to include participation of: • Project staff • Beneficiaries • Training of fieldworkers, recruited by partners

  9. Quantitative: Quality of Life • Structured, standardised instrument: Quality of Life questionnaire. • Challenge: • Translated into the local language and back translated into English (Portuguese).

  10. Qualitative: MSC • Narrative (“story telling”) • Setting domains • Participant level specified by partner • Steps: • Recruiting, “inviting” and preparing focus group participants • Selecting own MSC story (verifiable) • FGD: Narrating and voting by participants • Selected story documented • Translation Davies, R., & Dart, J: http://www.mande.co.uk

  11. QoL: General Health

  12. QoL: Psychological Wellbeing

  13. QoL: Social Relationships

  14. QoL: Environmental indicators

  15. Results: Qualitative • Project site stories were more positive than control site stories • The MSC story selected in Lesotho contained more negative aspects and this is also reflected in the quantitative data.

  16. Results: Qualitative(Common Themes) • Stories involved PLWHA experiences, attitudes and actions. • Support for PLWHA involved basic needs such as food, but also fulfilled other needs such as emotional support. • This support and acceptance changed the PLWHA outlook on life and the disease. • The community and PLWHA knowledge levels increased due to mitigation efforts by the project sites. • PLWHA positive attitudes made them disclose more easily and their involvement in the projects made an invaluable contribution.

  17. Value of Mixed Methods • The qualitative information corroboratedwith quantitative surveys. • Confirming the results of the other methods and in capturing and describing nuances and details that would easily be lost. • Its real value for PSG was clearly the use across cultures and languages. • Context specific

  18. Value of Mixed Methods (conti.) • Dissemination to all levels: • Satisfied the scientific needs of the scientific audience, • The need from donor organisations to have “hard evidence” as well as “personal pictures” • Direction to project staff • Feedback to and recognition of beneficiaries • The project sites commented on the value of the MSC method as a cost effective monitoring method.

  19. Conclusions • The results suggested that the participatory methods (MSC) added value to and yielded similar results to the Quality of Life quantitative surveys. • The satisfaction on different levels: • Donors • Partner project sites • Beneficiaries • A combination of the two methods is recommended for evaluations from “Umbrella organisations”. • The participatory method was especially useful in monitoring and evaluation efforts in cross cultural settings.

  20. Acknowledgement • Financial support • The Swedish Government through SIDA • The Norwegian Government • Dutch Government • PSG teams (RTAs, Admin, Finance, Research) • PSG Partner Organisations and field workers • ALL PARTICIPANTS

More Related