Lessons Learnt from An Evaluation of An Unexploded Ordnance Removal Program in Lao PDR
| Author | B-K Tan,Jo Durham |
| Published date | 2010--01 |
| Date | 2010--01 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X1001000107 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
44 Evaluation Journal of Australasia, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010
Evaluation Journal of Australasia, Vol. 10, No.1, 2010, pp. 44–48
REFEREED ARTICLE
Lessons learnt from an evaluation of
an unexploded ordnance removal
program in Lao PDR
The purpose of this article is to describe lessons learnt
when the first author, an ‘outsider’, was undertaking
a theory-based, mixed-methods evaluation of an
unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance program
in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR). The
lessons learnt comprised: 1) issues related to using a
theory-based mixed-methods evaluation design; 2)
contextualising languages, meaning and translation;
and 3) cultural interpretation of ethical issues. Finally,
it is proposed that reflexivity is an essential quality that
evaluators need to develop in order to manage such
challenges.
Introduction
Undertaking impact evaluations of social programs can be challenging, given
the multifaceted nature of such activity and the broader sociocultural milieu
in which some programs are implemented. This challenge can be made even
more complicated when the evaluator is an ‘outsider’ (Hennink 2008). With
this in mind, this article describes lessons learnt when a mixed-methods
impact evaluation of an unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance program
in Laos was undertaken. What is presented is based on the first author’s
experience as an ‘outsider’ and discussions with the local co-workers who
were ‘insiders’ undertaking this evaluation.
The evaluation was influenced by theory-driven approaches to evaluation
(for example, Chen 1997). More specifically, it was informed by ‘Realist
Evaluation’ (Pawson & Tilley 1997), with the objective being to address:
Who benefits from UXO clearance? In what ways? And in what contexts?
The evaluators also wished to address the lessons that can be learnt from:
implementing a mixed-methods evaluation design
■
issues that are associated with language and translation ■
challenges that are associated with cultural interpretations of ethical ■
issues.
Finally, the article examines reflexivity as a way to manage these
challenges. Reflexivity builds on the concept of reflection. It includes
reflecting upon, for example, the researcher’s values, epistemological
assumptions, experiences, interests, beliefs, political commitments and social
identities that might have informed the evaluation design and findings (Koch
& Harrington 1998).
Before proceeding to lessons learnt and in order to contextualise the
discussion, the article begins by providing a brief overview of theory-based
Jo Durham
B-K Tan
Jo Durham (top) is a PhD candidate in
International Health at the Centre for
International Health, Curtin University,
Perth. Email: <durhamjo@yahoo.com>
B-K Tan (bottom) is a Senior Lecturer at
the Centre for International Health and the
Director of the Go Global program, Faculty
of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth.
Email: <bk.tan@curtin.edu.au>
This article was written towards completion
of a PhD in International Health by Jo
Durham at Curtin University, Perth. Dr B-K
Tan is Jo Durham’s PhD supervisor.
EJA_10_1.indb 44 9/12/10 12:17:57 PM
To continue reading
Request your trial