This paper examines the issues inherent in evaluating impacts of peacebuilding interventions and aims to ensure evaluation designs are appropriate, robust and conflict-sensitive. It offers a perspective on what impact evaluation means in a peacebuilding context, and highlights the importance of conflict analysis to understand and test the relevance of any intervention to the conflict drivers. Because fragile and conflict-affected contexts are complex, it argues interventions should be examined from the ‘inside out’ (i.e. looking at the activities, outputs, outcomes and theories of change) as well as the ‘outside in’ (understanding the evolution of the conflict dynamics in the issues or area the intervention is trying to influence).
In evaluating impacts of peacebuilding, attribution of changes to an intervention is rarely possible, because changes in drivers of conflict and fragility result from many factors often working together. Examining contribution is more realistic and productive.
There is no one best evaluation approach for peacebuilding—the approach should be matched to the purpose and key questions of the evaluation. Nevertheless, experimental approaches (e.g. randomised control trials) and quasi-experimental approaches have very limited utility because they cannot answer many important impact evaluation questions, and because methodological challenges and conflict sensitivity concerns make them difficult and risky to implement in conflict contexts. Integration of participatory approaches into evaluation designs is especially useful because they allow for more nuanced understanding of the changes in the conflict contexts and for the incorporation of differing perspectives on conflict and peace (inherent in conflict situations) into the evaluation process.
