Evaluating rural development:

Mediating social learning within

LEADER

Chris High

&

Gusztáv Nemes

Outline

We want to discuss:

• The relevance of knowledge to rural development through evaluation practice

• The current evaluation arrangements for LEADER in Europe

• The challenges in improving the evaluation system for LEADER

• Some ideas about how to do this drawn from various sources

Knowledge and evaluation in rural development

Evaluation is:

“…a periodic assessment of the relevant performance, efficiency and impact of the project in the context of its stated objectives” (Casley & Kumar, 1988: 12).

Or:

“Did it work?”

“How might we do better?”

Knowledge and evaluation in rural development

Option 1: Realist - Scientific knowledge as transferable information.

Shannon & Weaver’s model of communication

Option 2: Constructivist – Socially constructed knowledge which is contextually dependent.Maturana’s model of communication

Summary of LEADER’s distinctive features:

(i) Bottom-up, locally based approach

(ii) Local Action Groups

(iii) Gives much freedom to local groups in terms of allocating spending.

(iv) Emphasises innovation

(v) Integrated rather than sectoral approach

(vi) Builds connections through networking activities,

Three traditions of thinking and practice related to the thinking behind LEADER

• Participatory development• Endogenous rural development• Governance

All highlight the contradiction between central and local control of initiatives.

In terms of evaluation: Evaluation by who and for who?

Evaluating LEADER+

• How to define and assess the distinctive features of LEADER separately?

• How to relate these to development outcomes?

• How to aggregate LEADER outcomes at national and European level?

• How to produce relevant evaluation information for different governmental stakeholders?

Saraceno (1999)

ConventionalEvaluation

From: Baker & Schuler (2004).

ParticipatoryEvaluation

From: Baker & Schuler (2004).

Evaluating LEADER+

• How to evaluate LEADER in a way that respects the diversity of local knowledge, in accordance with the aims and approach of the programme?

• How to institutionalise evaluation in LEADER, so as to build local capacity for social learning and rural development?

High & Nemes (2005)

Evaluating LEADER+• How to define and assess the

distinctive features of LEADER separately?

• How to relate these to development outcomes?

• How to aggregate LEADER outcomes at national and European level?

• How to produce relevant evaluation information for different governmental stakeholders?

Saraceno (1999) • How to evaluate LEADER in a way that

respects the diversity of local knowledge, in accordance with the aims and approach of the programme?

• How to institutionalise evaluation in LEADER, so as to build local capacity for social learning and rural development?

High & Nemes (2005)

Systems approaches to learning in Tamilnadu –

South India

• Indigenous knowledge in rural development.

• Communities of practice and communication strategies

• The need to consider learning and communication systemically.

• The existence and relevance of shadow networks

• Methodologically: approaches for stakeholder analysis and participation based on invitation.

Integrated rural development in South

Transdanubia – Hungary

• The central bureaucratic system and the local heuristic system in integrated rural development

• Reflexive agency in rural development; an articulation between individual and organisational learning.

• Reflexive agency can bridge the gap between the central bureaucratic system and the local heuristic system, at least temporarily through mediation.

• Horizontal mediation operates within a given level of governance to build capacity and forge accommodations

• Vertical mediation – a translation process between different levels of government with different knowledge frames and motivations for engaging with rural development.

Adapting to rapid climate change in South

Wales - UK

• The sophistication of ‘lay’ knowledge• The significance of shadow systems in

organisational and social learning, and hence adaptive capacity.

• The linked nature of formal and informal institutionalisations of knowledge and learning,

• The difficulties when formal institutions limit the shadow system.

• The existence of a growing school of thought on organisational learning that suggest ways forward in reconciling formal and informal knowledge structures.

Conclusions

We propose research into improved evaluation of LEADER projects that integrates endogenous and exogenous learning processes.

This would entail a shift from product to process and an emphasis on the capacity of individuals and organisations to deliver this kind of approach.

The experience of participatory evaluation in other contexts is encouraging, demonstrating that the integration of scientific and traditional knowledge is not only possible, but enriching.