• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states

Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states

Helpdesk Report
  • Roz Price
January 2018

Question

Provide an update to the 2013 GSDRC report ‘Remote management of projects in fragile states’, focusing on new remote monitoring approaches, tools and examples that are being used, specifically on third party monitoring approaches.

Summary

Provide an update to the 2013 GSDRC report ‘Remote management of projects in fragile states’, focusing on new remote monitoring approaches, tools and examples that are being used, specifically on third party monitoring approaches. In complex environments, where the root causes of conflict are often entrenched and dynamic, ensuring that the right information from multiple sources is being collected remains a challenge (Corlazzoli, 2014: 11). There is a growing but limited body of literature on remote programming in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), and more specifically remote monitoring, most of which has been produced over the last ten years (Rivas, 2015). The field of remote monitoring is still not yet well-developed or defined, hence, much of the literature focuses on outlining concepts and definitions. There is limited peer-reviewed literature on this topic, and grey-literature dominates but is still relatively restricted in its strength and breadth. A number of larger, more comprehensive literature reviews have been undertaken on remote programming by others and it is recommended that these are consulted for more in-depth information (see Chaudhri, Cordes and Miller, 2017; Corlazzoli, 2014; Dette, Steets and Sagmeister, 2016; Rivas, 2015; Sagmeister and Steets, 2016). The literature mainly focuses on International Organisation perspectives, with little information on the experiences of other actors. There is also limited discussion on ethical issues such as confidential beneficiary data management, appropriate engagement strategies in high-risk environments, and the dissemination of monitoring data (Chaudhri, Cordes and Miller, 2017: 52). The lack of rigorous operational research measuring robust outcomes limits the ability to draw strong conclusions on the effectiveness of different approaches. The literature considered in this review was largely gender-blind, although some gender issues are considered in relation to new technologies.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 567 KB]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade)

Suggested citation

Price, R. (2017). Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1420). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Measuring results
Topic Guide
2012
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023