Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: Five key paradoxes

Marijn Faling*, Greetje Schouten, Sietze Vellema

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Evaluation in complex programs assembling multiple actors and combining various interventions faces contradictory requirements. In this article, we take a management perspective to show how to recognize and accommodate these contradictory elements as paradoxes. Through reflective practice we identify five paradoxes, each consisting of two contradicting logics: the paradox of purpose—between accountability and learning; the paradox of position—between autonomy and involvement; the paradox of permeability—between openness and closedness; the paradox of method—between rigor and flexibility; and the paradox of acceptance—between credibility and feasibility. We infer the paradoxes from our work in monitoring and evaluation and action research embedded in 2SCALE, a program working on inclusive agribusiness and food security in a complex environment. The intractable nature of paradoxes means they cannot be permanently resolved. Making productive use of paradoxes most likely raises new contradictions, which merit a continuous acknowledging and accommodating for well-functioning monitoring and evaluation systems.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)211-231
Number of pages21
JournalEvaluation
Volume30
Issue number2
Early online date29 Nov 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: Five key paradoxes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this