Difficulty in the M&E of participatory processes = each case comes with a different context, a different process and different M&E objectives. > any suggested M&E framework destined to be applicable across a variety of cases will require more resources and involvement of evaluators than just following a guidebook “off-the-shelf”. Therefore, efforts made in the literature are often confronted with reluctance from practitioners who are repelled by the magnitude of the task. My contribution to bridge this gap are combined descriptive and analytical frameworks to monitor and evaluate participatory processes. Both frameworks are complementary and destined for different uses:
Main use = descriptive: description and comparative analysis of participatory processes. The purpose of this cross-comparison is to analyse the effectiveness of participatory processes and their elements.
Can also be used to point out critical elements that should be considered in the design of participatory processes
Advantages = Can be used with any participatory process (not necessarily planning) + Easy to use (questionnaire-type)
Limitation = Not intended as a device to conduct a detailed analysis of specific processes (for this the MEPPP framework can be used).
Main use = analytical: monitoring and evaluation of specific participatory planning processes
Advantages =Adapted to the plurality of objectives, contexts, viewpoints and able to capture unintended outcomes
Limitation = Requires more resources and involvement of the evaluators than just following an off-the-shelf guidebook.