Dr Marijn Faling on competing demands in monitoring and evaluating research

I am very proud of my paper, ‘Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: five key paradoxes’ which looks at the competing demands faced by monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems in research.

Such systems are frequently presented as either/or choices, while in fact they often face multiple simultaneous demands that all need to be met. If overlooked, this may result in tensions for evaluators and stakeholders.  

In the article, my co-authors and I identify 5 such paradoxes, including:

1. The paradox of purpose, dealing with the dual purpose of learning and accountability of M&E systems; 
2. The paradox of position, concerning differing demands regarding the evaluator as autonomous from, and involved in, the programme under evaluation; 
3. The paradox of permeability, identifying how the M&E system is expected to be open to as well as closed for interference from its surrounding environment; 
4. The paradox of method, which entails the dual expectations placed on M&E systems regarding rigour as well as flexibility in its systematics; 
5. The paradox of acceptance, encompassing dual expectations of an M&E system to be credible as well as feasible. 

By identifying the paradoxes, we aim to provide a practical method to discuss, navigate and accommodate competing demands on research evaluation systems.

Why is this research relevant?

This publication ties in closely with the 'Evaluation of development policy, programmes and projects’ course taught here at ISS. In this course, students are expected to design the Terms of Reference for an evaluation. 

Most existing sources portray M&E as requiring key choices, for instance relating to evaluating for learning vs evaluating for accountability; this publication is helpful for portraying the messiness and reality of M&E. 

It contributes to my and ISS’ research agenda as it demonstrates the value of combining academic research and practice, engaging in actual M&E practices to facilitate a process of interactive inquiry or 'reflective practice', which leads to insights that are well recognized and appreciated and inform both practice and academic debate.