If you only read one thing this week…

Complexity theory originally comes from science/biology and is just beginning to be applied to social sciences, including development.  It recognizes that the contexts in which we work are complex – multi-polar, diverse, often chaotic, etc., and that changes occurring within these systems are therefore usually non-linear, emergent, unpredictable, and experienced or viewed differently for the various people and groups who experience it (i.e., multiplicity of knowledge).

The implication for monitoring and evaluation is to further emphasize methods that realistically recognize these complex social systems and the underlying unpredictability and diversity of outcomes and perspectives for the various actors within them, and looking for the changes that our programs can help trigger within these wider systems. This isn’t new to the field of evaluation: our traditional mixed-method evaluations which incorporate surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews and other methods, when done correctly, do often succeed in drawing out diverse viewpoints and effects on different individuals and groups.

However, there are other methods that fit more naturally with complexity and are being increasingly mainstreamed relief and development agencies.  These approaches distinctly recognize the complex and unpredictable nature of program contexts, and therefore seek to measure changes in ways that:

-          are beneficiary-led:

-          recognize and celebrate the diversity of actors/views/experiences;

-          look for emergent trends and evidence of change, often in unpredictable and unintended ways:

-          assess change from the distinct viewpoint of different types of individuals and groups,

-          do not seek to predict outcomes or pre-ordain indicators of success as viewed by outsiders;

-          look for “resonance” of certain themes or indications of change across groups and contexts; and,

-          lend quantitative and qualitative results through systematic analysis and interpretation.

Techniques which specialize in fitting into a complexity theory lens on evaluation and meet some or all of the characteristics above include:

-          Most Significant Change;

-          Outcome Mapping;

-          Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) ;

-          Locally-developed indicators;

-          Self and peer-evaluation;

-          Photo voice;

-          Some applications of Appreciative Inquiry;

-          Other forms of participatory action research with emphasis on ongoing learning and reflection.

These techniques are gaining increased acceptance because of their unique ability to “tell the story” of how change really happens on the ground while emerging with a robust mix of quantitative and qualitative data.

For a more complete view on complexity theory and its application to M&E the following report by Wageningen International.  For additional background and presentations on suggested tools and approaches, you may also check out:  http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/events/Complexity/.



Interaction has just published a progress report on their perceptions of the state of foreign assistance, almost one year into the Obama administration.  Even if you don’t have time for the full report – take a look at the cover sheet which divides areas into ‘improved’ ’stagnant’ and ‘deteriorated’ in terms of progress on the particular issue and allows you to then read in more detail on each section – from Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment to Sudan to NGO and military relations. The report points out that the biggest obstacle to significant progress being made is the fact that as yet, no administrator for USAID has been appointed.

Reuters provides an interesting humanitarian story tracking service, Alertnet.org’s World Tracker Service, that charts the rise, retention (and fall) of 107 English-language media sources from around the world. Reuter’s codes then chart the humanitarian issues, providing an interesting look at why and how the general public cares about or follows certain stories. During August 2009, swine flu received the most attention, particularly on August 12, 2009 when the 107 news sources contained 123 articles on the subject. Was the attention merited? Well, on August 12, 2009 the WHO published its sixty-first update on the pandemic H1N1 and confirmed cases in the following countries: Timore-Leste, Pakistan, Kirabati, Maldives, French Guiana, Falkland Islands (UKOT), Wallis and Futuna. The day before, The New York Times reported that the family of the first deaths of swine flu in New York planned to sue the city for wrongful death, and CBS had a story on flying rabbis praying for the demise of the virus. Also Costa Rica’s president Oscar Arias announced on August 11 that he had contracted H1N1.

The second largest amount of coverage was “Afghan turmoil,” which spiked in attention from August 16 to August 21 leading up to the August 20 elections. While the election results are still unconfirmed, coverage dropped from around seventy stories per day during the aforementioned five day period to eighteen mentions on August 22 before ending the month with thirty seven stories on August 31.

Somalia generated thirty-nine stories on August 4, its high for the month before coverage declined to average one to six stories for the remainder of August. Coverage of Iraq regularly ebbed and flowed beginning the month with thirty four mentions and ending it with only four. Around the anniversary of the South Ossetian war in 2008, coverage spiked on August 6 and then sunk to zero on August 15. Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentencing by the Burmese junta on August 11 drove news mentions from only two on August 10 to twenty five the following day. By the 15th, Myanmar was back to only two mentions in the news.

Recent research by Barb Wigley of the Univ. of Melbourne suggests it’s actually the bad boss.  Wigley found aid workers often felt better prepared to manage stress related to violence and insecurity than stress from problems with managers and bureaucracies. She acknowledges the stress on managers coping with difficult situations and says that rather than bullying staff – often young or early in their development careers – managers require a keen sense of team dynamics in order to operate successfully in conflict contexts.  Think this is just a field issue?  Think again!  Wigley found aid workers were constantly frustrated about colleague dynamics in large organizations.  This article and Wigley’s research offer important insights into how culture influences organizations’ activities and performance, including staff retention and implementing change.  An important read whether you sit in Somalia or HQ!

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/113829727990.htm

Oxfam is running a fairly scathing article on both the quantity of assistance to Afghanistan, saying that while the US alone spends $100 million a day on security in the country, all donors combined spend only $7 million a day on aid. In addition to that imbalance, the aid that is arriving is not having the impact it should, leaving a third of the population at risk of hunger and the country the ‘worst place in the world to give birth’, with a woman dying in childbirth every 30 seconds.

Read the article here.