e-bulletin # 5 · March 2007
 
Support in Action
Close-Up
Knowledge
Opinion
Events
Team
Menu
Español
 
Knowledge

The Challenge of Evaluating Dialogue Processes *

Evaluation of dialogue processes shares the concerns of other process evaluations, namely shifting from a primary emphasis on accountability evaluation to placing greater attention to learning and adaptation. Traditionally, project teams have maintained a clear separation between monitoring –an activity of the team, conducted as a continuous process focused primarily on data gathering–, and evaluation, –a time-bound activity focused on analyzing and drawing conclusions from the data, conducted by external evaluators, often after the process has concluded–. As the shift towards learning and adaptation has progressed, those distinctions are becoming far less clear.

Monitoring and evaluation provide the necessary inputs for learning and adaptation, both during the dialogue process and, longer-term, as the basis for improving dialogue practice and contributing to process knowledge. It is also the basis for accountability to institutions that provide resources for dialogue, which have a legitimate and appropriate interest in understanding how and how well their investments are fulfilling their goals and achieving the desired impact.

As for the evaluation of any process that attempts to address conflicts, the complexity and challenges of evaluating dialogue process cannot be underestimated. When reflecting on dialogue evaluation it is important to define clearly what is to be evaluated, decide how to incorporate the feedback into the dialogue system, decide how to involve the stakeholders, develop both qualitative and quantitative indicators, balance a learning orientation with an outcome orientation, identify the essential elements and basic steps for evaluating dialogues, and design the appropriate tools for evaluating dialogue. Each of these aspects share challenges and responses from the evaluation practice at large, and present particular ones for dialogue processes.

* UNDP, IDEA International, OAS, (2006), Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners, Stockholm.


Capsules

David Bohm defines Dialogue as:
A current of understanding that flows between, inside and through the involved actors, and this shared understanding constitutes the cement, the agglutinating agent that supports the links between people and societies.

Conditions necessary to generative dialogue
  • Build a container/infrastructure strong enough to hold the transformational energies: institutional, physical, psycho-social.
  • Convene a team that is a strategic microcosm of the social system: require diversity for learning and influence.
  • Immerse in the complexity of the current reality: direct, shared experiences through Learning Journeys.
  • Attend to the interior condition of the interveners: systemic change from the inside out.

Some basic ingredients of democratic culture
  • Capacity to solve conflicts peacefully.
  • Capacity to handle cooperation and competition between political parties.
  • Capacity to develop an inclusive agenda for action.
  • Capacity for citizen participation.
Contribution of dialogue to democratic culture
Generation of attitudes, abilities, practices and experiences that result in a social capacity for democracy:
  • Re-framed mental models, a better and shared understanding of reality.
  • Increased trust.
  • Regeneration of energy and commitment, vision and hope.
  • Renewed action and momentum.