Eliza Urwin, Aisalkyn Botoeva, Rosario Arias, Oscar Vargas, Pamina Firchow
{"title":"在测量和评估中翻转权力动态:国际援助和有根据的问责模式的潜力","authors":"Eliza Urwin, Aisalkyn Botoeva, Rosario Arias, Oscar Vargas, Pamina Firchow","doi":"10.1111/nejo.12448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the overlooked barrier of accountability in the localization of international aid and development. It argues that the conventional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices, designed to satisfy donor accountability, hinder genuine localization in conflict-affected settings. The authors emphasize the need for a shift in knowledge creation within M&E processes, advocating for more inclusive and flexible structures that value and incorporate the insights and experiences of local communities. By examining the limitations of traditional M&E methodologies, the article proposes the adoption of feasible strategies that allow donors to report effectively to their constituents while enabling grantees to engage program participants and local communities more meaningfully. The concept of the Grounded Accountability Model (GAM) is introduced as a framework that co-constructs accountability between external groups supporting international efforts and the communities participating in aid projects. Drawing inspiration from activist roots in the peacebuilding field, the article explores how GAM can be operationalized at different organizational levels, showcasing its versatility and potential for broader implementation. The study presents two case studies, Asociación MINGA and Search for Common Ground, to illustrate the adaptability and application of GAM in diverse organizational structures and goals. By promoting a more nuanced understanding of projects supported by international aid, GAM offers a pathway to enhance localization, improve program effectiveness, and maintain accountability to both donors and local communities.","PeriodicalId":46597,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation Journal","volume":"30 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flipping the Power Dynamics in Measurement and Evaluation: International Aid and the Potential for a Grounded Accountability Model\",\"authors\":\"Eliza Urwin, Aisalkyn Botoeva, Rosario Arias, Oscar Vargas, Pamina Firchow\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nejo.12448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article addresses the overlooked barrier of accountability in the localization of international aid and development. It argues that the conventional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices, designed to satisfy donor accountability, hinder genuine localization in conflict-affected settings. The authors emphasize the need for a shift in knowledge creation within M&E processes, advocating for more inclusive and flexible structures that value and incorporate the insights and experiences of local communities. By examining the limitations of traditional M&E methodologies, the article proposes the adoption of feasible strategies that allow donors to report effectively to their constituents while enabling grantees to engage program participants and local communities more meaningfully. The concept of the Grounded Accountability Model (GAM) is introduced as a framework that co-constructs accountability between external groups supporting international efforts and the communities participating in aid projects. Drawing inspiration from activist roots in the peacebuilding field, the article explores how GAM can be operationalized at different organizational levels, showcasing its versatility and potential for broader implementation. The study presents two case studies, Asociación MINGA and Search for Common Ground, to illustrate the adaptability and application of GAM in diverse organizational structures and goals. By promoting a more nuanced understanding of projects supported by international aid, GAM offers a pathway to enhance localization, improve program effectiveness, and maintain accountability to both donors and local communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Negotiation Journal\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Negotiation Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12448\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文讨论了在国际援助和发展本土化过程中被忽视的问责制障碍。报告认为,传统的监测和评价(M&E)做法,旨在满足捐助者的问责制,阻碍了在受冲突影响的环境中真正的本地化。这组作者强调需要在管理和环境管理过程中改变知识创造方式,提倡建立更加包容和灵活的结构,重视并吸收当地社区的见解和经验。通过考察传统管理和评估方法的局限性,本文建议采用可行的策略,使捐助者能够有效地向其选民报告,同时使受助人能够更有意义地与项目参与者和当地社区进行接触。接地问责模型(GAM)的概念是作为一个框架引入的,它在支持国际努力的外部团体和参与援助项目的社区之间共同构建问责制。从建设和平领域活动人士的根源中汲取灵感,本文探讨了如何在不同的组织层面实施GAM,展示了其多用途性和更广泛实施的潜力。本研究以Asociación MINGA和Search for Common Ground两个案例来说明GAM在不同组织结构和目标中的适应性和应用。通过促进对国际援助支持的项目的更细致的了解,GAM提供了一个途径,以加强本地化,提高项目效率,并保持对捐助者和当地社区的问责制。
Flipping the Power Dynamics in Measurement and Evaluation: International Aid and the Potential for a Grounded Accountability Model
This article addresses the overlooked barrier of accountability in the localization of international aid and development. It argues that the conventional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices, designed to satisfy donor accountability, hinder genuine localization in conflict-affected settings. The authors emphasize the need for a shift in knowledge creation within M&E processes, advocating for more inclusive and flexible structures that value and incorporate the insights and experiences of local communities. By examining the limitations of traditional M&E methodologies, the article proposes the adoption of feasible strategies that allow donors to report effectively to their constituents while enabling grantees to engage program participants and local communities more meaningfully. The concept of the Grounded Accountability Model (GAM) is introduced as a framework that co-constructs accountability between external groups supporting international efforts and the communities participating in aid projects. Drawing inspiration from activist roots in the peacebuilding field, the article explores how GAM can be operationalized at different organizational levels, showcasing its versatility and potential for broader implementation. The study presents two case studies, Asociación MINGA and Search for Common Ground, to illustrate the adaptability and application of GAM in diverse organizational structures and goals. By promoting a more nuanced understanding of projects supported by international aid, GAM offers a pathway to enhance localization, improve program effectiveness, and maintain accountability to both donors and local communities.
期刊介绍:
Negotiation Journal is committed to the development of better strategies for resolving differences through the give-and-take process of negotiation. Negotiation Journal"s eclectic, multidisciplinary approach reinforces its reputation as an invaluable international resource for anyone interested in the practice and analysis of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution including: - educators - researchers - diplomats - lawyers - business leaders - labor negotiators - government officials - and mediators