IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cdipxx/v18y2008i4-5p633-642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using community indicators for evaluating research and development programmes: experiences from Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Jemimah Njuki
  • Mariam Mapila
  • Susan Kaaria
  • Tennyson Magombo

Abstract

Evaluations involving stakeholders include collaborative evaluation, participatory evaluation, development evaluation, and empowerment evaluation – distinguished by the degree and depth of involvement of local stakeholders or programme participants in the evaluation process. In community participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E), communities agree programme objectives and develop local indicators for tracking and evaluating change. PM&E is not without limitations, one being that community indicators are highly specific and localised, which limits wide application of common community indicators for evaluating programmes that span social and geographic space. We developed community indicators with six farming communities in Malawi to evaluate a community development project. To apply the indicators across the six communities, we aggregated them and used a Likert scale and scores to assess communities' perceptions of the extent to which the project had achieved its objectives. We analysed the data using a comparison of means to compare indicators across communities and by gender.

Suggested Citation

  • Jemimah Njuki & Mariam Mapila & Susan Kaaria & Tennyson Magombo, 2008. "Using community indicators for evaluating research and development programmes: experiences from Malawi," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4-5), pages 633-642.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:18:y:2008:i:4-5:p:633-642
    DOI: 10.1080/09614520802181913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614520802181913
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09614520802181913?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:18:y:2008:i:4-5:p:633-642. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cdip .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.