Evaluation for farming systems improvement: looking backwards, thinking forwards
J. DartClear Horizon, PO Box 341, Hastings, Vic. 3915, Australia. Email: Jess@clearhorizon.com.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(6) 627-633 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA03249
Submitted: 21 November 2003 Accepted: 20 August 2004 Published: 29 June 2005
Abstract
Based on personal reflection, this paper presents program evaluation as a vehicle to bring about better project results and perhaps even a better world. New paradigm approaches to farming systems improvement feature multiple collaborators in work that is increasingly participatory, process-oriented and diverse in outcome. This is often accompanied by pressure for rapid feedback and dialogue. Conventional objectives-based evaluation methods are insufficient to capture the range of unanticipated outcomes that this work may produce, and may be incompatible with a participatory ethos. In the contemporary farming systems improvement context, evaluation is most valuable when it has short-cycles and fosters reflection. Two contrasting techniques that offer promise for meeting these needs are the most significant change technique, and participatory approaches to program logic. Presenting a radical departure from conventional monitoring against quantitative indicators, most significant change technique involves the regular collection and participatory interpretation of ‘stories’ about change rather than predetermined quantitative indicators. Program logic is the rationale behind a program or project — what are understood to be the cause and effect relationships between project activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate outcomes. When done in group situations, program logic offers many benefits by enabling participants to question the cause and effect assumptions to improve project design. These techniques can supplement traditional approaches; closing some of the information gaps identified by contemporary farming systems improvement work.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge, that while the views presented are my own, a considerable amount of the work behind these ideas was developed in conjunction with Evaluation Support Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. I was fortunate enough to work with this team and I thank them for allowing me to present these ideas. More information about the work of this team can be found in McDonald et al. (2003).
Bennett CF
(1975) Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension 1, 6–12.
(verified 6 June 2005).
Dart JJ
(1999b) The tale behind the performance story approach. Evaluation News and Comment 8, 12–13.
(accessed 6 June 2005).
Guerin LJ, Guerin TF
(1994) Constraints to the adoption of innovation in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 549–571.
| Crossref |
(verified 6 June 2005).
McDonald B,
Rogers P, Kefford B
(2003) Teaching people to fish? Building the evaluation capability of public sector organisations. Evaluation 9, 9–30.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murray P
(2000) Evaluating participatory extension programs: challenges and problems. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 519–526.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pretty JN
(1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23, 1247–1263.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
