Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Evaluation in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding

 Printable version

Why is evaluation essential in conflict resolution and peacebuilding work? How can traditional evaluations be adapted for this purpose? This chapter from the Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution examines the difficulties and possibilities of evaluating conflict resolution and peacebuilding initiatives. Renewed attention to evaluation strengthens connections between peacebuilding theory and practice.

Evaluation requires time, resources and expertise and can produce self-evident or insufficiently nuanced results. But there are good reasons to bring evaluation to the forefront of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Evaluation is essential for accountability and for monitoring and improving existing initiatives.

Four main types of study have contributed to evaluation of peacebuilding:

• Lessons learned studies: Evaluations of this type often recommend practical suggestions for practitioners and donors. While these make an important contribution, they often neglect assessment of local views.
• Research-orientated case studies: These studies often focus on outcomes, impacts or processes of peacebuilding, either in a single country or comparatively. This type of evaluation is designed to build or test theory.
• Key questions/reflections studies: Rather than measurement indicators or standard evaluation criteria, these studies provide a list of questions for those planning, designing or evaluating initiatives. They encourage practitioners to reflect on practice.
• Overall frameworks and methodologies studies: These studies often aim to introduce methodologies, criteria or indicators for the assessment of peacebuilding initiatives. They tend to be more appropriate in planning stages, rather than in assessing impact.

Practitioners are now able to draw on a range of ideas and frameworks to evaluate conflict resolution and peacebuilding work. Evaluation can become an automatic part of the process of planning, implementation, review and adjustment. But challenges remain:

• All attempts to intervene in conflict situations begin with assumptions about the nature of the conflict and how it can be resolved. Evaluation specialists agree that the ‘theory of change’ must be articulated in the planning phase, but this often proves difficult.
• Finding a way to attribute changes to practitioner activities is a common challenge in evaluation. This is particularly relevant in conflict settings with multiple stakeholders, but does not mean evaluation should be abandoned. Practitioners should limit claims about impacts to those that can be validated, conduct baseline studies and develop new indicators.
• Local voices should be included in the evaluation process. There can be significant differences between the perceived goals of donors and practitioners and those of target populations.
• Collecting data can be difficult in conflict zones. One option is to bring participants together in a neutral location to capture data. Another is to commission local groups with better access to collect data collection.

Access full text