Equitable evaluation in remote and sensitive spaces

The article examines equitable evaluation in remote and sensitive spaces, using case studies to highlight the application of the Equitable Evaluation Framework™ in DRG programs.

It addresses MEL challenges, emphasizing trust-building, safety, and community-defined success.

In this article, Guidrey, Bango, and Ayoob (2022) discuss how democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) programs aim to strengthen civic space but often operate in remote and sensitive areas where stakeholders face significant risks. These programs require flexible, iterative monitoring and evaluation (MEL) approaches to ensure participant safety and adapt to complex, volatile environments. Traditional MEL methods are often inadequate, necessitating the use of the Equitable Evaluation Framework™ to address systemic power imbalances and incorporate local perspectives. The authors provide real-life examples of applying equitable evaluation principles to navigate the unique challenges of remote and sensitive spaces.

Key content

Key takeaways from the resource include:

Remote spaces

Remote spaces are defined by geographic isolation, often due to natural or human-made barriers that hinder accessibility. These areas lack consistent infrastructure such as roads, electricity, and communication networks, complicating the implementation and monitoring of programs. Remote spaces can also include areas where populations are isolated due to censored or highly surveilled internet access. Additionally, conflict or war can make certain locations inaccessible, necessitating remote management and reliance on local partners.

Sensitive spaces

Sensitive spaces are characterized by the political, social, and cultural dangers that stakeholders face. These areas often involve surveillance, harassment, and threats to safety for individuals engaged in democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) work. Funding from external sources or independent activities can exacerbate risks, especially in regions with state-sponsored restrictions on civil society. The sensitivity of these spaces demands careful consideration in research and program implementation to avoid endangering participants and staff.

Trust

Trust is both a concept and a condition crucial for effective and ethical research. As a concept, it involves the reliability of researchers to respect the dignity, privacy, and identity of participants. As a condition, it requires developing relationships that ensure safe and responsible information sharing. Establishing trust often means deviating from traditional objectivity, leveraging trusted intermediaries, and building connections with participants to ensure ethical data collection and analysis.

Taking an equitable evaluation approach to tackle MEL challenges in remote and sensitive spaces

The article emphasizes the importance of equitable evaluation in addressing the challenges of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) in remote and sensitive spaces. The Equitable Evaluation Framework™ (EEF) focuses on contributing to equity, incorporating equity values in evaluation design and implementation, and answering critical questions about structural and systemic drivers of inequity. This approach aligns MEL activities closely with program implementation, ensuring that findings are useful to participants and respectful of their contexts.

Case example 1: Equitable evaluation principles in program activities - community definition of success

This case study illustrates the application of EEF principles in a program where participants face physical threats and harassment. The program employed rumor tracking as both a programmatic and evaluative method, creating a feedback loop between communities and program staff. This method involves collecting and verifying rumors to provide accurate information, thus addressing misinformation and supporting community decision-making. Community correspondents played a key role in this process, ensuring that the approach was deeply localized and responsive to immediate needs.

Case example 2: Equitable evaluation principles in evaluation design - prioritizing program participants in the selection of evaluators and methods

This example highlights the importance of digital security in evaluation design. In a program evaluating the preparedness of digital security trainers, the evaluator was selected based on their knowledge and trust within the digital security community. The evaluation design prioritized participants' security needs and involved collaborative development of evaluation questions and methods. This approach ensured that the evaluation was culturally valid and participant-owned, reflecting EEF principles.

Case example 3: Equitable evaluation principles during implementation - trust and relationships as the starting point

In this case, the program addressed the information needs of an internally displaced community experiencing ethnic persecution. The program relied on community liaisons to collect concerns and provide real-time feedback through radio broadcasts. This two-way information exchange empowered the community and enhanced trust between the displaced community and international support organizations. The continuous feedback loop ensured that the program remained responsive and relevant, embodying the principles of equitable evaluation.

Conclusion

The article concludes that equitable evaluation principles are essential for effective MEL in remote and sensitive spaces. By challenging traditional notions of expertise and evaluation methods, DRG evaluators can better understand and measure success according to community-defined metrics. The Equitable Evaluation Framework™ provides a guide to ensure that MEL activities contribute to more equitable, just, and democratic societies, emphasizing the importance of community-driven change and continuous adaptation to complex environments.