• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • 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
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Participatory M&E and Beneficiary Feedback

Participatory M&E and Beneficiary Feedback

Helpdesk Report
  • Oliver Walton
September 2010

Question

Please identify the existing literature on participatory monitoring and evaluation, with a particular emphasis on gaining wide-ranging beneficiary feedback. Comment on the coverage, scalability, risks, benefits and applicability.

Summary

A number of key lessons emerge from the literature on participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) and beneficiary feedback:

  • PM&E and beneficiary feedback approaches can improve effectiveness and sustainability and reduce the costs of monitoring, but these approaches also carry risks. These include generating unrepresentative results and increasing tensions between stakeholders.
  • PM&E should be understood as social and political processes. The primary barriers to PM&E and beneficiary feedback mechanisms are therefore political (relating to incentives, organisational culture and power relations), not technical.
  • PM&E and beneficiary feedback mechanisms should be tailored to the local context and integrated into local political structures and processes. This requires careful facilitation and analysis, which is dependent upon the investment of time and resources.
  • Although ICTs present opportunities for scaling up beneficiary feedback mechanisms, the advantages of these tools are largely unproven. It is important that ICTs are not viewed as a ‘magic bullet’ and that they are carefully tailored to context.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Decentralisation of budgeting process
Literature Review
2017
Legislative oversight in public financial management
Literature Review
2016
Tools for participatory analysis of poverty, social exclusion and vulnerability
Helpdesk Report
2013
Participatory methods for community consultation
Helpdesk Report
2013
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022