Do outsiders make you passive?

The consequent changes in power and relationships that participation entails are ignored by top down-oriented development programs that focus on deliveries (outputs). Even world summits on aid effectiveness, such as the one that culminated with the signature of the Paris Declaration, fail by not mentioning who should be reached by these programs. As people are treated as passive objects under this paradigm, M&E tends to serve the needs of donors and implementers only, and is often done toward the end of the projects, not allowing for improvement.

Good looking outputs or Social transformation?

Participatory methods are bottom-up processes, and include self-mobilization and interactive participation. They aim to achieve social transformation, through participation, learning and empowerment of local people, in order to increase relevance and effectiveness of development programs. Recently, these methods are slightly becoming more reflexive, more realistic when involving local communities, and are making efforts to reverse some recent top-down trends imposed by donors. But, as they are long term, some of their outcomes are not easily observable and indicators are often hard to find.

Thus, interim outcomes/milestones could alleviate some of the pressure placed by donors, and subjectivity should be embraced, not despised.

Financial resources aren't forever

Financial resources are finite. Thus, one needs to evaluate tradeoffs and realize priorities when doing PM&E. For instance, this could mean that PM&E could mainly focus on the direct outcomes (effectiveness) and on a specific group (differentiated by sex, class, ethnicity, and age). It could also mean that indicators and data collection methods should be limited to answering the questions that are most relevant with the precision that is minimally acceptable. But then again, if budget allocation implies skipping understanding dynamic features such as conflict resolution and resilience, I would say there is no real effectiveness (the only achieved effectiveness lays on a piece of paper). In fact, empowering effects are at least as important as functional effects and none should be taken out from the equation. One positive thing is qualitative data, aiming to measure capacity-building and empowering outcomes, is usually retrieved using not so expensive data collection methods.....but, is there the will to do the right thing?

Then again what are the differences between conventional and participatory M&E (PM&E)?

PM&E is a continuous and reflexive process that puts stress on the process itself (and not only on eventual outputs and outcomes). It involves relevant stakeholders in each stage of a development project/program and it aims to measure and improve social transformation (empowerment derived from improved capacity, and strengthened communication skills; and community's emotional, psychological, cultural, and spiritual needs). Development is interpreted as a complex process. Thus, some of the outcomes are intangible and long-term, which means qualitative indicators, commitment of time (in order to conquer mutual trust), and availability of resources are required. This paradigm underlines the constant need for monitoring and evaluation (which can be a joint process between implementers, donors and stakeholders) as an enhancer of internal-learning process leading to self-determination, autonomy, and effectiveness. Under PM&E, accountability and ownership are supposed to be balanced, as it should be.

Conventional approach is usually seen as an implementation-based M&E, not focused on people and on outcomes. Thus, efficiency is a primary key in this paradigm (which also determines accountability): the best usage of resources in activities that generate outputs that hopefully will benefit the communities in a specific time frame. It is a top-down model where the communities are not entirely passive, but they do not interact or self-mobilize to reach their own development. Indicators are pre-determined and Monitoring and evaluating is often external and tend to take place toward the end of a project which gives little space for interventions that would improve its performance.

Is that so?

Not really! In practice, PM&E is not exempt from externally led approaches and isn't always a continuous process. That does not help achieving enough flexibility to fully strengthen local organizations and increase institutional learning, to understand and negotiate stakeholder perspectives, and to enhance public accountability. Top-down approaches have not exclusively been using quantitative methods. In practice, both approaches have many similarities, and if there is anything that distinguishes them is the emphasis on interactive and collaborative participation placed by PM&E. Indeed, under PM&E the questions ‘who initiated the M&E?’ and ‘whose perspectives are considered?’ are essential.

And...are the most relevant stakeholders being involved?

Again, no! Often, projects tend to focus only on major stakeholders and they give little or no attention to the final beneficiaries (or they analyze beneficiaries as a whole, not particularizing specific marginalized groups and their needs).

It is through participation of all relevant stakeholders in a process of negotiation of claims, concerns and issues, under a certain physical, psychological, social and cultural context, that consensus emerges allowing to enhance trust, learning and flexibility.