Participatory evaluation and research in context of violence

and conflict

Dr. María Rato BarrioGroup for Cooperation DIM

Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport SciencesTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

ISDPA Power of Sport Summit, Boston, 10-12 June 2010

Dr. Clemens LeyInterdisciplinary Centre of Excellence forSports Science and Development (ICESSD)

University of the Western Cape, South Africa

Passivity

Givinginformación

Participationfor consulting

Participationfor incentive

Funcional Participation

InteractiveParticipation

Self-development

“Ste

ps of

particip

ation”

They get informed; passive participation

They give information, e.g. through questionnaire

They get asked, but they are not involved in decision making

They take part in some parts of the project regarding to incentives

They take part in the project to fulfil the tasks and goals, but are not involved in need assessment and design of project

Take part in all phases of the project; empowerment.

They take proper initiative without waiting

for external support

Participatory?

Is it possible in context of violence and conflict?

• Who is taking part? How?• Previous condition

Security, do not harm-principle, understand cultural expression and codes, demand, etc.

• Barriers of participationRelationships, stigmas, transport, time, place, etc.

• Neutrality?• Intersubjectivity• Triangulation• Empowerment / Sustainability

Facilitating participatory process• Content – Relations – Process

• Facilitator = methodological role • Facilitator must be demanded and

recognized• Expectations and goals must be clear

• Sport, games, creative methods…

Participatory approach in the project cycle

Evaluation

Implementation

Project design / formulation

Need assessment

Project planning

Resources and costs

ActivitiesForeseen results

Objectives / goals

Need assessment

= Theories of change

(Coalter, 2006; GTZ, 1996; Henry, 2009; NORAD, 2005; MAE-SECIPI, 2001; U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, 2002, 2005; W.K.Kellogg Foundation, 2004; et al.)

Table of decision - action

Key informant

Questionnaire

Interview

Mapping

SWOT analysis

A. Vulnerabilities – Capacities

Foro / assambley

Focus group

Role plays

Needs / ideas / goals/ proposals

Devolution

Ways of action / alternatives

Viability

Time / duration

Responsibilities

Priorities

Assessment of wayof action / alternatives

…

Photo-interviewingPhotovoice

….

Project evaluation

Inputs

ThroughputsActivities/Process

OutputsOutcomes:- Initial - Intermediate - Long-term

Context Evaluation

Analytic

= Theories of change

(Coalter, 2006; GTZ, 1996; Henry, 2009; NORAD, 2005; MAE-SECIPI, 2001; U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, 2002, 2005; W.K.Kellogg Foundation, 2004; et al.)

Participatory evaluation and research• Capacity training in research methods• Group is defining research indicators, methods,

techniques, etc.• Constant devolution and consultant of community• Compromised to action / part of intervention

(e.g. awareness building, education, denunciation, etc.)

Conclusion

• Intentional and rigorous process (Previous condition, barriers, adequate selection of methods and techniques, intersubjectivity, triangulation, etc.)

• Alternative techniques: Sport and games as a tool for evaluation and research

• Longer process, but learning, empowering and sustainable process

• Facilitator methodological role

Participatory evaluation and research in context of violence

and conflict

Dr. María Rato BarrioGroup for Cooperation DIM

Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport SciencesTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

ISDPA Power of Sport Summit, Boston, 10-12 June 2010

Dr. Clemens LeyInterdisciplinary Centre of Excellence forSports Science and Development (ICESSD)

University of the Western Cape, South Africa