Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: Five key paradoxes

In this article, Marijn Faling, Sietze Vellema, and Greetje Schouten report on five paradoxes in monitoring and evaluation, each encompassing two competing logics.

This resource was contributed by Marijn Faling.

Authors and their affiliation

• Marijn Faling (International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam)
• Sietze Vellema (Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen University & Research)
• Greetje Schouten (Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen University & Research)

Key features

Evaluation systems often face competing demands, the most well-known being the dual purpose of monitoring for learning/improvement and evaluating for accountability. But this is just one among multiple contradictory requirements placed on evaluation systems. If overlooked, these multiple competing demands may result in tensions for evaluators and stakeholders. Therefore, acknowledging and addressing these contradictory demands is essential for a well-functioning evaluation system.

The paradoxes include:

• The paradox of purpose, which encompasses the dual purpose of learning and accountability of M&E systems;
• The paradox of position, concerning differing demands regarding the evaluator as autonomous from as well as involved in the program under evaluation;
• The paradox of permeability, identifying how the M&E system is expected to be open to as well as closed for interference from its surrounding environment;
• The paradox of method, which entails the dual expectations placed on M&E systems regarding rigour as well as flexibility in its systematics;
• The paradox of acceptance, encompassing dual expectations of an M&E system to be credible as well as feasible.

The authors encountered these paradoxes in their efforts to design, implement, and manage an M&E system of a complex program set in a complex and uncertain environment. By identifying the paradoxes, they aim to provide a language, or a heuristic, to discuss, navigate, and accommodate competing demands on evaluation systems.