Estrella, M. and J. Gaventa. 1998. Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review. IDS Working Document No. 70. ISBN 1 85864 230 2.With more and more opportunities to promote broad-based participation in development, there is increased recognition that monitoring and evaluation should also be participatory. This paper presents a literature review of experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) from around the world, used in differing contexts and involving all kinds of stakeholders – NGOs, donors, research institutions, government, people’s organisations, and communities. It introduces the key principles of PM&E, its applications for differing purposes, and a number of tools and methods used, including participatory learning methodologies as well as more conventional approaches. Finally, it raises key issues and broad challenges emerging from the literature, and outlines potential areas for future research.

McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and evaluating process, outputs and outcomes. IDRC. 54 pp.The focus of this paper is on using monitoring and evaluation as a tool for adaptive learning and project improvement, for integrating social theory into participatory methods, and for understanding the links between participatory processes and outcomes. The importance of using participatory monitoring and evaluation methods for bringing in the perspectives of local people whose lives are being influenced by the research is also explored. The first part of the paper provides a background for understanding participatory research in community-based natural resource management projects. Participatory research and the various interpretations of “participation” in research - from consultative to collegiate - are described, and the complexities of applying and interpreting participatory research in community-based natural resource projects are explored. These complexities include the influence of social identity, divergent interests, local norms and institutions and power dynamics on the process and outcomes of the research. Sections 5 and 6 describe the rationale and present a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory research within the context of donor institutions which have the dual objectives of supporting quality and relevant applied development research while at the same time strengthening institutional and individual research capacity. In this case, a balance must be struck between “academically ideal” research, available resources, researcher capacity and skills, and community needs. This influences evaluation criteria and expectations of participatory research projects. Section 7 describes key considerations for developing an appropriate and learning-based approach to monitoring and evaluating participatory research projects. This draws from a number of different evaluation strategies and recognises that different groups (researchers, donor agency, community members) have different monitoring and evaluation needs, as well as different perceptions of positive and negative research outcomes. Section 8 presents options for integrating monitoring and evaluation into the different stages of the project cycle (pre-project, in-project and interim or post-project). The final sections of the paper present the issues and questions to consider in monitoring and evaluating the process and outcomes of participatory research for natural resource management. This is based on characteristics which indicate validity and quality of the participatory research process and methods, as well as the potential of the methods used to contribute to reaching the general goals of community-based natural resource management (sustainability, equity, local empowerment, poverty alleviation and so on). The ideas are geared for both the programme level and the project level, to be used by researchers during the project to help inform the research project, as well as to provide guidance for interim or post project assessments. July, 1999

Case, D.D. 1990. The community's toolbox: The idea, methods and tools for participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry. FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.In June of 1988, in the small town of Kisumu, on the shore of Lake Victoria in Kenya a workshop on participatory monitoring and evaluation was held. It was sponsored by the FAO/SIDA Forests, Trees and People Programme, CARE International and the Ford Foundation; and was attended by people from many countries. In the year preceding the workshop, case studies on the information systems of six forestry projects in East Africa had been done by a team of researchers. The results of the workshop, and the case studies have been reported in "Proceedings of the National Agroforestry Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology Project (AFMEMP) Workshop". The field staff who attended this workshop expressed their concern that although "participation" was now considered essential for sustainable and successful community/social forestry, there was little information available to them on "how to do it". As one workshop participant said: "I'm convinced that participation is necessary, but when I return to my country and the communities I work with, I don't know where to begin!". Soon after the workshop, D'Arcy Davis-Case, a forester specializing in grass-roofs participation and a member of the AFMEMP case study team, began putting together a concept paper on this topic for the FAO/SIDA Forests, Trees and People Programme. The concept paper is now being followed by this field manual, which has been built on the needs expressed by field staff f at the AFMEMP workshop; and based on field staff experiences. Many of the traditional monitoring and evaluation methods and tools have been adapted to be more participatory. The result is "The Community's Toolbox". The manual is organized into Three Sections. Section One introduces the idea, and benefits to be gained from a new approach. This section also provides some two-way communication exercises for field staff. Section Two provides the methods for determining information needs, and ways that information can be analyzed and presented. Section Three describes the information collecting tools, and offers some suggestions for selection of tools. Because the manual will be used by field staff in many countries of the world, the illustrator has used simple drawings so that differences such as nationality, culture, dress and race are not a problem. Three distinct categories of people are characterized in the illustrations.

Social Impact. Technical notes on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation.Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) offers development and social change organizations a host of opportunities for improving program performance and enhancing the management capacity of local partners. While many agencies can evaluate programs using outside "expert" approaches, few have the know-how and skills to employ PME approaches during project monitoring and evaluation missions or to design PME systems that will effectively operate during a project’s life. PME methodologies encompass a wide and expanding range of philosophies, tools and methodologies. For many agencies using results-oriented planning approaches such as the Logical Framework (LFA) and Project Cycle Management (PCM) there is great opportunity to strengthen programs by combining PME methods with PCM. This note provides some practical suggestions on how to design PME systems, illustrates three examples of PME in practice, and concludes with a PME Checklist.

Estrella, M. y J. Gaventa. 2001. Quién da cuenta de la realidad? Monitoreo y evalucación participativos: revisión bibliográfica. IDS Working Paper No. 70. ISBN 1 85864 391 0.Con el aumento en las oportunidades para promover una mayor participación en el desarrollo, crece también el reconocimiento de que el monitoreo y la evaluación deben ser participativos. Este documento presenta una revisión documental de experiencias de monitoreo y evaluación participativos (M&EP) realizadas en diversas partes del planeta, en diferentes contextos e involucrando a todo tipo de interesados: Organizaciones No-Gubernamentales (ONGs), donantes, institutos de investigación, gobiernos, organizaciones de pobladores y comunidades. Se presentan también los principios básicos del M&EP, sus aplicaciones con diferentes propósitos, así como una variedad de herramientas y métodos utilizados, incluyendo metodologías de aprendizaje participativo y enfoques más convencionales. Finalmente, se abordan algunos temas claves y retos generales derivados de la información estudiada, y se destacan áreas potenciales para futuras investigaciones. THIS WORKING PAPER IS A SPANISH VERSION OF IDS WORKING PAPER 70 FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1998

Probst, K. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Promising Concept in Participatory Research? Lessons from two case studies in Honduras (Kommunikation und Beratung Bd. 49), 2002, XII + 220pp., 21 x 14,8 cm, paper, ISBN 3-8236-1386-3.To date in agricultural research, farmer participation in monitoring and evaluation has been limited to assessing technologies, and to consultations on adoption and impacts of innovations. However, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) may have much more to offer as an approach for regular self-reflection and learning within projects, and it could make a significant contribution in the complex field of participatory research for natural resource management. These were the initial assumptions which formed the starting point for the study documented in this book. Based on action research undertaken in two case study projects in Honduras, this book assesses the potential benefits and limitations of using PM&E in participatory research, and elucidates key conditions for success in its implementation. It contributes to the actual debate on participatory research, the re-orientation of international agricultural research, and adds new aspects to the age-old topic of monitoring and evaluation. This dissertation was supported in part by a small grant from the PRGA.

Pasteur, K. and J. Blauert. 2000. Participatory monitoring and evaluation in Latin America: overview of the literature with annotated bibliography. IDS Development bibliography No. 18.Increased discussion on the merits and methods of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) has emerged as a result of various trends in academic and practical fields of development thought and policy. In Latin America, as elsewhere, the inclusion of primary stakeholders in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities is being insisted upon by donors, and increasingly sought by Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs). But concerns over costs, timing and quality as well as use of information thus gathered are also raised. PM&E is often still considered to be mostly an issue of method and timing, as well as of information management and effective systems, but with the addition of involving beneficiaries in a consultative process. Furthermore PM&E is mostly considered to be relevant only as an activity at a particular stage of the project cycle (e.g. mid-term evaluation, local population as monitoring agents, or evaluation at the end of project or policy cycle); less commitment and experience can be observed at the point of making effective and transparent the adaptations in planning, implementation and institutional behaviour that can result from a process of PM&E. The phase of taking PM&E beyond the realm of methodology, into that of organisational change and institutional learning for a transformative development and research agenda is only slowly being initiated. In Latin America, this new phase has its roots in various trends:

Gujit, I. and J. Woodhill. 2002. Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A guide for project M&E. International Fund for Agricultural Development. available in English and SpanishThis Guide has been written to help project managers and M&E staff improve the quality of M&E in IFAD-supported projects. The Guide focuses on how M&E can support project management and engage project stakeholders in understanding project progress, learning from achievements and problems, and agreeing on how to improve both strategy and operations. The main functions of M&E are: ensuring improvement-oriented critical reflection, learning to maximise the impact of rural development projects, and showing this impact to be accountable. The Guide is meant to improve M&E in IFAD-supported projects, as a study found that most projects have a fairly low standard of M&E. The Guide provides comprehensive advice on how to set up and implement an M&E system, plus background ideas that underpin the suggestions.

IFAD, Managing for Impact in Rural Development. A guide for project monitoring and evaluation. Available in Arabic, English, French and Spanish.The main functions of M&E are: ensuring improvement-oriented critical reflection, learning to maximise the impact of rural development projects, and showing this impact to be accountable. The Guide focuses on how M&E can support project management and engage project stakeholders in understanding project progress, learning from achievements and problems, and agreeing on how to improve both strategy and operations. The Guide provides comprehensive advice on how to set up and implement an M&E system, plus background ideas that underpin the suggestions.

Douthwaite, B. J.D.H. Keatinge and J.R. Park. 2002. Learning selection: A model for planning, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72 (2):109-131. Request reprintThis paper develops a model of the early adoption process that takes into account modifications made by users. The model is based on data from 13 attempts to introduce six postharvest technologies into the Philippines and Vietnam. It is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution. At the core of the model is the interactive experiential learning process –– learning selection (LS) –– that is analogous to natural selection in the living world. In learning selection stakeholders engage with a new technology, individually playing the evolutionary roles of novelty generation and selection, and in their interactions creating recombinations of ideas and experiences and the promulgation of beneficial novelties. Peoples' motivations to engage in learning selection, and its outcomes, are influenced by the interaction between their lifeworlds and their environments. The model has implications for management of agricultural technology change. It suggests the need for a nurturing of new technology during its early adaptation and adoption, until the point where the beneficiary stakeholders (manufacturers and users) are sufficiently numerous and have adequate knowledge to play the evolutionary roles themselves. The LS model, while developed with data from agro-mechanical technologies, could provide a theoretical underpinning for participatory technology development.

USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation. 1996. Conducting a participatory evaluation. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips No. 1.Participatory evaluation provides for active involvement in the evaluation process of those with a stake in the program: providers, partners, customers (beneficiaries), and any other interested parties. Participation typically takes place throughout all phases of the evaluation: planning and design; gathering and analyzing the data; identifying the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations; disseminating results; and preparing an action plan to improve program performance.

IDRC. 2002. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit. A Guide for Researchers. Volume 8: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation.This kit is a reference tool to assist researchers funded through IDRC's Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program in Asia to apply concepts, analytical approaches and research methods from the social sciences in their research. While the kit was originally delivered as a set of resource books each dealing with a different key issue area related to CBNRM research, CBNRM is now trying to make as much of the Resource Kit available as possible through the IDRC website. Because of copyright laws, we cannot publish electronic versions of the readings in the Resource Kit. However, we are including the citations for each reading, and an order form for obtaining documents through the IDRC library. The topics/issue areascovered in the Resource Kit include: Gender; Community-Based Natural Resource Management; Participatory Research; Indigenous Knowledge; Institutional Analysis; Common Property; Stakeholder Analysis; Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation; and Resource Tenure. Depending on feedback received from these materials, other topics or issues may be considered for coverage in future.

McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and reflection: A guide for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. IDRC. 94pp. This guide outlines an approach for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. It is intended to provide support to people involved in research and development projects using a participatory research methodology, in particular at the community level dealing with natural resource management issues. The guide is not a blue-print, but addresses issues that are at the heart of making an art of monitoring and evaluating participatory research. The guide is organized around six basic, interrelated questions that need to be answered when doing monitoring and evaluation. These questions are:- WHY do we monitor and evaluate participatory research ? (Chapter 2)- FOR WHOM will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 3)- WHAT will we monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 4)- WHO will monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 5)- WHEN will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 6)- HOW will we do it ? (Chapter 7).Examples of tools to operationalise HOW will be given in each of the five preceding chapters. It will be useful to supplement this guide with resource books on participatory research methods since many of these methods may also be used for monitoring and evaluation. For those interested in more details about specific tools, a selected bibliography is presented in Chapter 7.

IDS. 1998. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change. IDS Policy Briefing No 12.Development organisations need to know how effective their efforts have been. But who should make these judgements, and on what basis? Usually it is outside experts who take charge. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is a different approach which involves local people, development agencies, and policy makers deciding together how progress should be measured, and results acted upon. It can reveal valuable lessons and improve accountability. However, it is a challenging process for all concerned since it encourages people to examine their assumptions about what constitutes progress, and to face up to the contradictions and conflicts that can emerge.