When we talk of monitoring and evaluation in general, the first idea that comes to mind is accountability & the easiest and most tangible form of accountability generally tends to be associated with numbers. On the other hand, when talking of peacebuilding, the first idea that comes to mind is subjectivity, something that is very intangible. One can see then how the two ideas oppose each other. How then do we involve M&E in a field that is so subjective to truly represent the reality of peacebuilding processes and their outcomes? On what middle ground do the two help each other? Is there space for quantitative measures in this field or is it only qualitative evaluations?

How I have come to think of it as inspired by Mara Schoeny is, it is not a question of qualitative vs quantitative but rather, a triangulation of various types of evaluations that reinforce and support the results of each other. We often see cases where the quantitative and qualitative evaluations clash with each other, leading to the disintegration of peacebuilding programs. The emphasis here is to strive for a quantitative evaluation in synchronization with the qualitative design convincing readers of their combined persuasive results.

Now, how do we go about carrying out a successful evaluation? What tools help us? One of the tools we were introduced to, that I think could be very helpful is the Log frame model that has outputs divided into activities and the people affected by the activities, which helps hash out specific details of the peacebuilding program, narrow focus on a target audience, resulting in a clearer framework set for evaluation. However, like the log frame, there are several other tools one can use, but given how this field is so dynamic, inter-disciplinary, complex and ever evolving, each tool manages to capture only specific aspects of a process and not the whole program in its entirety. Therefore, why draw lines between these tools? Why not erase these lines, and mix and match to show a more accurate representation of the situation? This could be a way of capturing the complexity in a program design and its equivalent evaluation. For example, in a Log Frame model you do find arrows that typically continue pointing in the same direction. However, some relationships are more representative of a causal loop instead, could we then have causal loops in a log frame to better represent relationships and theories of change?

In the end, as I have come to understand it, anything is possible as long as you have a strong underlying theory of change to explain the relationships between the different points and parts of your design and resulting evaluation. The stronger and better articulated the underlying theory of change in a program, the better the scope of evaluating it truly and effectively.