Sharing Nicely

I went to a development project evaluation workshop. It was a bit like learning to speak a new language, except that the grammar and vocabulary seem to change constantly.

For example, some of the words that used to be ok to use, but are not anymore, are: “impact”, “causality”, “failure”. Also, the previous darling “empowerement” is now a “loaded” word. Upon inquiring one learns that the words were discarded since they are too open to (mis)interpretation and not concise or clear enough. In the same explanation the words “loaded”, “outcome”, “influence” and, of course, “success” are used confidently. Also, lest one consider adding a sceptical comment, it’s important to remember that we are working in an “appreciative framework”, which, as far as I can determine, means we only speak about things that went well, since the other things would make us all just feel bad – and what is the point of that?

In a way this is fun, since you are constantly trying to avoid using the words that best describe what you want to say, but there is something disconcerting underneath. While the discussion often centers around importance of participatory approaches and involvement of all perspectives, there is an almost fanatic clinging to the terminology de jour, and terms that don’t fit — “quantitative data” an all time favourite enemy — are quickly dismissed.

Participatory and patronising came up again. An evaluation methodology that describes success and failure of a project from an outside perspective is considered patronising. An evaluator however, who works with the project team through planning and implementation is considered non-patronising. But I wonder if it is not the second approach, where an outsider thinks her contribution is important from beginning to end, that says “you need our help since you can’t do it yourself” whereas the first approach says “we use our measure to evaluate your success, but we believe that you are able to plan and implement them yourself”.