Navigating M&E methodologies

Balancing rigor with practicality

For over a decade, I have worked in various Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) roles in different sectors, including healthcare systems, community development, third-party monitoring, and performance enhancement for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). My primary objective has always been to ensure efficient and effective implementation and delivery of results, learning, improved decision-making, and adaptive improvement. Making sound judgments regarding M&E methodologies and approaches is crucial to achieving effective results. Therefore, our work as M&E professionals involves balancing practicality and methodological rigor in developing and evaluating monitoring and assessment strategies and techniques.

It is essential to have systematic M&E approaches and methodologies to make effective decisions and achieve improved results.

These M&E approaches aim to measure and evaluate policy, program, and activity effectiveness and impact using indicators and models to prioritize monitoring efforts and provide accurate assessments. Establishing effective M&E systems is crucial for achieving development goals and improving operational relevance. These systems involve integrating useful frameworks that streamline measurement, identify data collection gaps, and encourage the utilization of evaluative information. Organizations can enhance their performance by implementing appropriate M&E approaches and methodologies and ensuring that their policies, programs, and activities achieve their intended outcomes.

As a professional in the field of M&E, I often face the challenge of finding a balance between methodological rigor and practicality when presenting evidence to support decision-making. In such situations, I find it helpful to return to my M&E methodological toolbox, just as a mechanic would return to their toolbox to fix a car problem. By doing so, I can determine the most appropriate approach and methodology to address the evidence challenge, considering factors such as time and resources. Given that resource constraints are common in evaluation and monitoring, it is crucial to prioritize M&E priorities based on the most pressing information needs of decision-makers. While there may be many demands for data on program performance, it is not always possible to meet all these demands without incurring unacceptable costs. Therefore, carefully considering the most important information needs is necessary to allocate M&E resources effectively.

So, what criteria can guide decision-making regarding appropriate M&E methodologies and approaches? In such situations, I typically rely on five key questions to determine the appropriate M&E approach and methodology:

1. Will the evaluation outcomes affect decisions about the program?
2. Can the evaluation activity be completed within a reasonable timeframe?
3. Is the program significant enough to warrant robust methodologies?
4. Is program performance perceived as problematic?
5. What stage of development is the program in?

By answering these questions, I can categorize my methodology and approach selection based on the rigor desired and the methodological paradigms.

M&E approaches and methodologies can vary in complexity, ranging from experiment-based to non-experimental, depending on the nature of the evaluation question, whether it is general or specific. Regarding methodological paradigms, a clear delineation has traditionally been drawn between positivist and constructivist paradigms (See Figure 1). On the one hand, positivist methods typically entail quantitative measurements, while constructivist methods emphasize qualitative interpretations of diverse values and viewpoints. However, mixed-methods strategies have recently gained traction in evaluation to surmount the limitations of relying solely on one approach. These approaches incorporate various methods to deliver a more comprehensive and in-depth evaluation.

The approaches and methodologies implemented rely on social science methodologies and professional standards. The discipline of development M&E provides procedures and resources that M&E professionals in organizations of every kind can employ to attain accurate, dependable, and trustworthy data to address diverse inquiries about the effectiveness of the various development programs. Therefore, the planning and design of M&E will depend on the methodological rigor required to produce credible results, the type of evidence needed, and the amount of data that will be adequate.

In sum, the field of M&E plays a pivotal role in ensuring the effectiveness and impact of various development programs. As professionals in this field, we encounter the ongoing challenge of balancing methodological rigor with practicality to provide decision-makers with valuable insights. Considering resource constraints and the need for timely and relevant information, this balance is crucial. By adhering to systematic M&E approaches and methodologies, organizations can prioritize their monitoring efforts, identify gaps, and make informed decisions to enhance program performance. The selection of appropriate methodologies depends on factors such as program significance, stage of development, and the desired level of rigor.

In navigating these complexities, M&E professionals rely on diverse M&E approaches, ranging from quantitative to qualitative methods, and increasingly embrace mixed-methods strategies to capture nuanced insights. Ultimately, the planning and design of M&E methodologies and approaches must align with each program's specific goals and contexts, ensuring that the data collected is credible, dependable, and contributes to meaningful decision-making processes. As we refine our M&E practices and methodologies, we empower organizations to achieve their development objectives and drive positive change in their communities.

Additional reading

Ganna, Chumak. (2023). Methodological monitoring of ecological and economic development of an industrial enterprise. Ukra?ns?kij ?urnal prikladno? ekonomìki, doi: 10.36887/2415-8453-2023-1-24

Leanne, M., Kelly., Julia, Goodall., L, Lombardi. (2022). Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework in a humanitarian non-profit organisation using agile methodology. Disaster Prevention and Management,? doi: 10.1108/dpm-11-2021-0312

J., Sudagar. (2022). Holistic approach to bioeconomy monitoring and evaluation.?? doi: 10.4324/9781003223733-6

Rohin O. Onyango is a Senior M&E Expert driving impactful projects across Eastern and Southern Africa. Currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Development Studies at St. Paul's University. He has held vital M&E roles in diverse sectors of development programs funded by the World Bank, USAID, GIZ, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the MasterCard Foundation.