Evaluation in conflict zones: Methodological and ethical challenges

Journal of Peacebuilding and Development

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 5-25

  Bush, Kenneth ^a   Duggan, Colleen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Complexity; Conflict theory; Conflict zones; Development; Ethics; Evaluation; Fieldwork; Methodology; Peacebuilding; Politics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006571853     PISSN: 15423166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15423166.2013.812891     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Evaluation Association 2004, AEA Guiding Principles for Evaluation: http://www.eval.org/publications/guidingprinciples.asp
2. Bamberger, M., Rugh, J. & Mabry, L. 2006, Real World Evaluation: Working under Budget, Time, Data, and Political Constraints, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Belousov, K. et al. 2007, ‘Any Port in a Storm: Fieldwork Difficulties in Dangerous and Crisis-Ridden Settings’ in Qualitative Research 7: 2: 155–175.
4. Bush, K. 1998, A Measure of Peace: Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) of Development Projects in Conflict Zones, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
5. Bush, K. 2003, ‘PCIA Five Years on: The Commodification of an Idea’ in The Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/dialogue1_bush.pdf
6. Bush, K. 2005, ‘Field Notes: Fighting Commodification and Disempowerment in the Development Industry: Things I Learned About Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) in Habarana and Mindanao’ in The Bergh of Handbook for Conflict Transformation: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/articles/PCIA_addKB.pdf
7. Bush, K. & Duggan, C., forthcoming, Evaluation in Extremis: The Politics and Impact of Research in Violently Divided Societies, Delhi: Sage.
8. Church, C. & Rogers, M. 2006, ‘Chapter 11: Ethics’ in Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring & Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs, Washington: Search for Common Ground.
9. Cutts, M. & Dingle, A. 1995, Safety First — Protecting NGO Employees Who Work in Areas of Conflict, London: Save the Children.
10. Devereux, S. & Hoddinott, J. 1993 eds, Field Work in Development Countries, Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
11. Duggan, C. 2011, ‘Aligning for Impact: Human Rights’ in Journal of Human Rights Practice 3: 2: 214–219.
12. EC 2009, Impact Assessment Guidelines of the European Commission, SEC(2009) 92.
13. ECHO 1999, Manual for the Evaluation of Humanitarian Aid: http://www.cihc.org/members/resource:library_pdfs/8_Programming/8_2_Evaluation/echo-manual_for_he_Evaluation_of_Humanitarian_Aid-1999.pdf
14. Fitzpatrick, J.L. & Morris, M., eds. 1999, Current and Emerging Ethical Challenges in Evaluation: New Directions for Evaluation, No. 82, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15. Hawe, P., Bond, L. & Butler, H. 2009, ‘Knowledge Theories Can Inform Evaluation Practice: What Can a Complexity Lens Add?’ in New Directions in Evaluation 124: 89–100.
16. Hendrick, D. 2009, ‘Complexity Theory and Conflict Transformation — an Exploration of Potential and Implications’, Centre for Conflict Resolution Department of Peace Studies Working Paper 17, University of Bradford: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/confres/papers/pdfs/CCR17.pdf
17. International Alert et al. 2004, Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peacebuilding: A Resource Pack, London: International Alert.
18. Jayawickrama, J. & Strecker, J. 2013, ‘The Ethics of Evaluating Research. Views from the Field’ in Bush, K. & Duggan, C. eds, Evaluation in Extremis: The Impact and Politics of Research in Violently Divided Societies, Delhi: Sage.
19. Killicoat, P. 2007, ‘Weaponomics: The Global Market for Assault Rifles’, Post-Conflict Transitions Working Paper No. 10, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 4202: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2007/04/13/000016406_20070413145045/Rendered/PDF/wps4202.pdf
20. Kovats-Bernat, J.C. 2002, ‘Negotiating Dangerous Fields: Pragmatic Strategies for Fieldwork Amid Violence and Terror’ in American Anthropologist, New Series 104: 1: 208–222.
21. Lidow, N. 2010, ‘Rebel Governance and Civilian Abuse: Comparing Liberia Rebels Using Satellite Data’. paper prepared for the American Political Science Association (APSA) Conference, Washington, September.
22. Mitleton-Kelly, E. 2007, ‘The Emergence of Final Cause’ in Aaltonen, M. eds, The Third Lens: Multiontology Sense-Making and Strategic Decision-Making, Aldershot: Ashgate.
23. Morris, M. 2008, ‘Ethics and Evaluation’ in Morris, M. eds, Evaluation Ethics for Best Practice. Cases and Commentaries, New York: Guilford Press.
24. Morris, M. 2011, ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Evaluator: 25 Years of AJE Ethics’ in American Journal of Evaluation 32: 1: 134–151.
25. Morris, M. & Clark, B. 2012, ‘You Want Me to Do What? Evaluators and the Pressure to Misrepresent Findings’ in American Journal of Evaluation 34: 1: 57–70.
26. Newman, D.L. & Brown, R.D. 1996, Applied Ethics for Programme Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. OECD 2002, Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, http://www.oecd.org/development/peer-reviews/2754804.pdf, accessed 22 June 2013.
28. OECD 2007, ‘Encouraging Effective Evaluation of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities: Towards DAC Guidance’ in OECD Journal on Development 8: 3, doi: 10.1787/1996580x
29. OECD 2008, Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peace Building Activities, Paris.
30. OECD 2010, Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, Paris: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf, accessed 19 December 2011.
31. OECD 2011, Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities. Lessons from the Application Phase. Chairman’s Summary, Paris: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationofdevelopmentprogrammes/dcdndep/48092571.pdf
32. OECD 2012, Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results, Paris: OECD, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264106802-en
33. PANOS 2009, ‘How Can Complexity Theory Contribute to More Effective Development and Aid Evaluation’, dialogue at the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, London, 3 July: http://evaluationrevisited.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/panos-london-complexity-and-evaluationdialogue.Pdf
34. Patton, M.Q. 1997, Utilization Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, London: Sage, 3rd edn.
35. Ramalingam, B., Jones, H., with Reba, T. & Young, J. 2008, Exploring the Science of Complexity: Ideas and Implications for Development and Humanitarian Efforts, London: Overseas Development Institute: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/833.pdf
36. Scheper-Hughes, N. & Bourgois, P. 2004, ‘Introduction’ in Scheper-Hughes, N. & Bourgois, P. eds, Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell.
37. Scheyvens, R. & Storey, D. 2003 eds, Development Field Work. Practical Guide, Delhi: Sage.
38. Shortland, A. 2012, Treasure Mapped: Using Satellite Imagery to Track the Developmental Effects of Somali Piracy, London: Chatham House: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/0112pp_shortland.pdf
39. Turner, D. 2003, ‘Evaluation Ethics and Quality: Results of a Survey of Australasian Evaluation Society Members’, AES Ethics Committee, November: http://www.aes.asn.au/images/stories/files/About/Documents%20-%20ongoing/ethics_survey_summary.pdf
40. UN 1998, Security in the Field, New York: Office of the UN Security Coordinator.
41. VeLure Roholt, R. & Baiserman, M. 2012, ‘Special issue on Evaluation Advisory Groups’ in New Directions in Evaluation 136.
42. Verkoren, W. 2008, ‘Debating Complexity: The Value of Complexity for Development’ in The Broker — Connecting Worlds of Knowledge: http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/Articles/Debating-complexity
43. Zaveri, S. 2013, ‘Evaluation and Vulnerable Groups: Forgotten Spaces’ in Bush, K. & Duggan, C. eds, Evaluation in Extremis: The Impact and Politics of Research in Violently Divided Societies, Delhi: Sage.