• 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»Use of participatory methods in VAWG evaluations

Use of participatory methods in VAWG evaluations

Helpdesk Report
  • Erika Fraser
December 2011

Question

To what extent have participatory methods with beneficiaries been used to rigorously evaluate the impact of programmes designed to prevent or tackle violence against women and girls? Please provide specific examples.

Summary

In spite of the growing body of evidence that violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a serious human rights and development issue, there remains a paucity of evaluations of the impact of interventions in this area (particularly the impact on girls).

The majority of evaluations of programmes to prevent or tackle VAWG take the form of qualitative, input or process-level assessments, as opposed to approaches that measure the outcomes or impact for beneficiaries. Many also measure change at the individual level but not at the community level.

Of the limited number of impact evaluations that exist, few use participatory tools with beneficiaries. Even when participatory methodologies are used as part of an initiative to tackle or prevent VAWG, the evaluation itself may stick to standard quantitative and qualitative tools to examine impact.

Nevertheless, there are a couple of examples of rigorous impact evaluations which have used participatory methodologies as part of an integrated approach to program evaluation that involves the triangulation of data sources. One of the most rigorously evaluated and successful programmes to tackle VAW is South Africa’s Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity (IMAGE) programme. This study is one of few randomised control trials to evaluate a violence prevention programme.

The SASA! evaluation in Uganda also deploys participatory methodologies alongside quantitative and other qualitative methods.

Another, more recent, impact evaluation strategy involving participatory methodologies is the Safe Cities Global Programme, including projects in five cities, Cairo, Kigali, New Delhi, Port Moresby and Quito (2010-15).

There is clearly scope for further inclusion of participatory approaches in rigorous evaluations of VAWG interventions. Through the use of participatory methods, evaluations can help triangulate data to validate and explore findings in greater depth, as well as allowing for the voices of less powerful groups, particularly women survivors of violence, to be heard throughout the process.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID CHASE: Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department

Related Content

Key Drivers of Modern Slavery
Helpdesk Report
2020
Interventions to Reduce Forced Marriage
Helpdesk Report
2019
Preventing/Countering Violent Extremism Programming on Men, Women, Boys and Girls
Helpdesk Report
2019
Digital tools and changing behaviour in relation to violence against women
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more