Mental gym at the GEM exchange
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Aug 21
GEM speaks to people, said Sarah Earl, an evaluation specialist attending a workshop to improve what’s been coined as the Gender Evaluation Methodology. More than an evaluation theory, GEM "is a development theory," commented Earl from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. "It [indicates the] stand on gender, women and technology, participation, women's equality, development,” added the senior programme officer at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Earl, along with 36 ICT practitioners from around the world, took part in the GEM Global Training Exchange in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at the end of July 2007. Participants increased facilitation skills, evaluation knowledge and provided input into upcoming adaptations of this evaluation methodology initially designed by the Association for Progressive Communications Women's Programme (APC WNSP) in 2001.
Rooted in reality
Part of the impetus to develop GEM emerged after finding that the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) could not be assessed or understood properly. Evaluation models “simply did not respond to the internet for social transformation objectives and realities that the APC WNSP had,” reflected Chat Garcia Ramilo, global coordinator of the women’s programme of APC, at the Malaysia encounter.
GEM's emphasis is on learning by doing, and during the methodology’s initial development phase, learnings from evaluations in a variety of internet-for-development scenarios were incorporated into the GEM tool.
That experience is what distinguishes GEM from other evaluation methodologies, Earl explained, and not just its focus on gender and ICTs. "Its foundation is use-oriented. That's not common. It's developed out of southern experience and networking. The vast majority of evaluation work is coming out of donor agencies and academic organisations."
As a proponent of use-oriented evaluation, Earl encouraged participants to select an evaluation methodology that would best inform project and participant actions, as well as decision-making.
Focussing on how evaluations will be used and by whom, is just as important as use considerations during the evaluation process itself, she emphasized. For example, in the process of data collection, evaluators may master a digital organiser or gain audio editing skills.
According to Angela Kuga Thas, a GEM developer and experienced evaluator, GEM is different from other tools because it is a methodology that not only looks at the project cycle from an evaluative perspective. “It asks the user to seriously consider what changes the ICT-type-project has brought about to improve gender power relations."
Too much context, too much information?
Earl's insights sparked lively debates and sharing during the Exchange, especially since GEM is not without critique.
GEM relies heavily on qualitative data. For instance, it proposes storytelling as one method of capturing data. "When qualitative interviewing is done well," said Earl, "it can be a powerful experience, and a continuation of the empowerment process."
Gender advocates frequently feel that the depth provided by qualitative methodologies is the only way to fully understand gender dimensions, people's perceptions and beliefs. But quantitative inputs such as sex-disaggregated data are also valuable.
An exercise during the Exchange showed participants' strong preference for "constructivist" research. The conference room practically tilted as ICT trainers, academics and policy-makers trooped over to the “constructivist side", opting for methods such as case studies, qualitative interviews, and context-specific analysis which takes diversity into consideration.
The "positivist side” of the room looked decidedly under populated, with its emphasis on statistical analysis, control groups and an objective perspective. A positivist approach may yield more generalisations for policy decision-making, but not enough insight for project transformation, participants seemed to agree.
Indeed, GEM findings may have less echo with number crunchers. The point is to be transparent about one's bias, speakers encouraged, and recognise that not everyone will adopt the same approach.
Evaluation methodologies must be chosen according to use, but also feasibility, and doing large-scale studies is out of the budget scope for many initiatives undertaken by nonprofits.
The APC WNSP never saw GEM as a recipe-book for coming out with an engendered project or sweeping policy change since the emphasis was placed on the uniqueness of people and contexts where ICT projects are implemented. Kuga Thas couldn’t agree more. "I want an evaluation methodology that helps me to know what to ask and how to find out, but at the same time, won't interpret the answers for me."
Fine-tuning, simplifying, adapting
The Global Trainers Exchange marks the beginning of a second phase of development for GEM, featuring adaptations in four specific ICT settings: rural ICT projects, telecentres, software localisation efforts, and ICT policy initiatives at the national level.
The Exchange and upcoming research is aimed at making GEM easier to use in distinct ICT-use scenarios, whether a project is running mobile telecentres at Indian market places, audio projects for rural girls in South Africa, or scripting software in Cambodia.
Some evaluators have found GEM too conceptual, commented Kuga Thas who, as GEM research coordinator, is charged with adapting it to new settings.
"Make the tool more user-friendly," recommended Joyce Endeley, Associate Professor at the University of Buea in Cameroon, where she teaches students an array of evaluation tools so that they can choose according to whatever project they engage in upon graduation. She sees the adaptation process as a way of honing the gender and ICT analysis of GEM as well. With technology transforming so swiftly, GEM needs to "delve deeper," she insisted.
GEM evaluators have a new online space - titled the GEM Zone after energetic debate - to continue the discussions and accompany each other through evaluations. Visit the space at http://www.apcwomen.org/gem.
The next step for the GEM team is to develop facilitators' guides for each thematic area. Once the research is completed (2008-2009), the GEM adaptations, like the current GEM tool, will be freely available on line.
(END/2007)
Source: APC WNSP
