The performativity of monitoring and evaluation in international development interventions: Building a dialogical case study of evidence-making that situates ‘the general’
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2020
The performativity of monitoring and evaluation in international development interventions: Building a dialogical case study of evidence-making that situates ‘the general’
The dominance of high-income countries in ‘generalised’ evidence-making is increasingly recognised as a barrier to advancing understandings of social change processes in international development. Building more equitable and collaborative institutionalised relationships with localities is therefore emphasised. This paper details how a dialogical case study of evidence-making in international development was developed through the single-case ethnography of a youth sexual behaviour change and empowerment intervention in Tanzania. It illustrates how dialogical theorising was applied in both data collection and analyses towards advancing understandings of the ethical and dynamic Self–Other interdependencies through which evidence is made and communicated. The analyses highlight the performativity of monitoring and evaluation activities: how networks of relations perform the logic of rigid predictability that underpins the design and funding of international development interventions. The non-dialogical and inauthentic nature of these relations are found to foster distrust, holding the potential to undermine the ‘empowering’ goals of the intervention overall. ‘The international’ in evidence-making is therefore situated as a cultural location that lacks relevance in contexts such as Tanzania where changeability trumps predictability. Fostering equities therefore demands attending to colonialities regarding language use, the authority given to artefacts, and the sociohistorical and accumulative contextualisations of distrust.
AbouZahrC.MacfarlaneS. B. (2019). Global health data: An unfinished agenda. In MacfarlaneS.AbouZahrC. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global health data methods for policy and practice (pp. 487--508).
London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
AbrahamC.JohnsonB. T.de BruinM.LuszczynskaA. (2014).
Enhancing reporting of behavior change intervention evaluations. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,
66(3), S293–S299.
3.
AvelingE.-L. (2011).
Mediating between international knowledge and local knowledge: The critical role of local field officers in an HIV prevention intervention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,
21, 95–110.
4.
BakhtinM. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act.
Texas:
Texas University Press.
5.
BallS. J. (2003).
The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy,
18(2), 215–228.
6.
Bartholomew-EldredgeL. K.MarkhamC.RuiterR. A.FernandezM. E.KokG.ParcelG. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.).
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
7.
BatiboH. M. (1995). The growth of Kiswahili as language of education and administration in Tanzania. In PutzM. (Ed.), Discrimination through language in Africa (pp. 57--82).
Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
CallonM. (1998). The laws of markets.
Hoboken, NJ:
Blackwell Publishers.
CookeB.KothariU. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny.
London, UK:
Zed Books.
11.
CornishF. (2015).
Evidence synthesis in international development: A critique of systematic reviews and a pragmatist alternative. Anthropology & Medicine,
22(3), 263–277.
12.
CornishF.CampbellC.ShuklaA.BanerjiR. (2012).
From brothel to boardroom: Prospects for community leadership of HIV interventions in the context of global funding practices. Health and Place,
18(3), 468–474.
13.
DavisA.WalkerD. G. (2019).
On the path to UHC – Global evidence must go local to be useful: Comment on “Disease control priorities third edition is published: A theory of change is needed for translating evidence to health policy”. International Journal of Health Policy Management,
8(3), 181–183.
14.
DenzinN. K. (2009).
The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research,
9(2), 139–160.
15.
de St CroixT. (2018).
Youth work, performativity and the new youth agenda: Getting paid for numbers?Journal of Education Policy,
33(3), 414–438.
16.
Du PlessisE.LorwayR. (2016). What really works? Understanding the role of ‘local knowledges’ in the monitoring and evaluation of a maternal, newborn and child health project in Kenya. In BellS.AggletonP. (Eds.), Monitoring and evaluation in health and social development: Interpretive and ethnographic perspectives (pp. 47--62).
Abingdon-on-Thames, UK:
Routledge.
17.
DuveenG.LloydB. (1993). An ethnographic approach to social representations. In BreakwellG. M.CanterD. V. (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 90--109).
Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
18.
EvansJ. A.ShimJ.-M.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2014).
Attention to local health burden and the global disparity of health research. PLoS ONE,
9(4), e90147.
19.
HummelbrunerR. (2010). Beyond logframe: Critique, variations and alternatives. In FujitaN. (Ed.), Beyond logframe: Using systems concepts in evaluation. Issues and prospects of evaluations for international development – Series IV.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Retrieved from https://www.fasid.or.jp/_files/publication/oda_21/h21-3.pdf
20.
HviidP. (2020). Dialogical experiences in practice – Research with Danish daycare: Moving from abstract to concrete generalizations. Culture & Psychology.
21.
IbhawohB.DibuaJ. I. (2003).
Deconstructing Ujamaa: The legacy of Julius Nyerere in the quest for social and economic development in Africa. African Journal of Political Science,
8(1), 59–83.
22.
KavirajS. (2010). The imaginary institution of India. Politics and ideas.
New York:
Columbia University Press.
23.
KumarS.CorbridgeS. (2010).
Programmed to fail? Development projects and the politics of participation. Journal of Development Studies,
39(2), 73–103.
24.
LambertH. (2016). Measurement, modification and transferability: Evidential challenges in the evaluation of complex interventions. In BellS.AggletonP. (Eds.), Monitoring and evaluation in health and social development: Interpretive and ethnographic perspectives (pp. 32--46).
Abingdon-on-Thames, UK:
Routledge.
25.
LinellP. (2001). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
26.
LinellP. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making.
Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
27.
MarkovaI. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
28.
MarkovaI. (2016). The dialogical mind: Common sense and ethics.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
29.
MarkovaI.FoppaK. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue.
London, UK:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
30.
MarkovaI.GillespieA. (2008). Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives.
Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
31.
MarkovaZadeh, andZittoun. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on generalisation from dialogical single case studies. Culture & Psychology.
32.
Maticka-TyndaleE.BarnettJ. P. (2010).
Peer-led interventions to reduce HIV risk of youth: A review. Evaluation and Program Planning,
33(2), 98–112.
33.
MuganeJ. M. (2015). The story of Swahili.
Athens:
Ohio University Press.
34.
ShuklaA.TeedonP.CornishF. (2016).
Empty rituals? A qualitative study of users’ experience of monitoring & evaluation systems in HIV interventions in Western India. Social Science & Medicine,
168, 7–15.
ZittounT. (2014). Trusting for learning. In LinellP.MarkovaI. (Eds.), Dialogical approaches to trust in communication (pp. 125--151).
Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
39.
ZittounT. (2016).
Living creatively, in and through institutions. Europe’s Journal of Psychology,
12(1), 1–11.
