Number 4,
Summer 1996

CCCRTE

by David Lord

To provide a framework for the day's discussion, Clem McCartney was asked to set out some of the principal dilemmas related to evaluation of conflict resolution training for practitioners and those who fund it. Noting that the language of the field is highly contested, Clem presented a matrix built around some of the words used in describing conflict resolution training and the context in which it is done -- conflict, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, training and evaluation..

At one pole of the conflict resolution trainers' world, as sketched by Clem, are the positivists, who, in general terms, use the framework of competing interests to describe conflict. Relativists, at the other pole, generally see conflict as an aspect of change. Conflict resolution , for the positivist, is a process of bargaining, trade offs and reaching agreements, and, for the relativist, a process which facilitates co-operation and problem-solving.

Peacebuilding for the positivist is about creating non-violent relationships and an environment of non-violence. For the relativist conflict resolution practitioner, peacebuilding denotes the emergence of new, inclusive relationships.

Conflict resolution training for the positivist focuses on skills and techniques that are specific and tangible. For the relativist there is the creation of awareness and understanding, as well as the application of technique in specific circumstances.

Finally, evaluation, for the positivist, is a summative judgement of a completed event or activity, while, for the relativist, it is formative -- an explanation that describes or reflects what is happening and is illuminative of what "conflict resolvers" want to do.

In terms of the differences between the more narrow positivist and the broader relativist approaches, Clem noted that practitioners may be able to "move between them -- weave through them", but he also asked if practitioners who do that could at the same time be consistent. And, as an aside, he remarked that practitioners have a tendency to "do what seems to be possible" in the circumstances.

While there is much emphasis among conflict resolution trainers on elicitive techniques that draw out the perceptions, interests and possible strategies of the "trainees", rather than didactic or Socratic techniques, Clem suggested that in some circumstances this might be the wrong way to work. He then presented a "more Freirian model", which could be "genuinely elicitive" when those doing the conflict resolution training do not know the answers to the dilemmas faced by those directly affected by the conflict. This more balanced approach implies dealing with specifics, but coming to understand the broader context out of which those specifics are drawn.

He noted that everyone involved in conflict resolution -- from practitioners to participants in training activities, to funders -- want numbers, facts, and proof of results. "We like figures even if we don't give them meaning." While some practitioners also want to be open, responsive, inclusive, flexible and maintain a broad view of the context of their work and its impact, "at some time we want to pin things down." However, pinning things down can lead to facile assumptions that if "we do A, then B seems to happen, therefore, we can conclude that A stems from B." Often, however, the nagging questions remain: "Is that what really happened and who decides what really happened?"

Other major dilemmas for those involved in conflict resolution training are the questions of how such training contributes to positive change, how best to take into account the dynamic change processes in any society and how to deal with the situation as it is, how to determine the objective setting of a training event, how you accurately judge what you are doing and how to recognise and evaluate unforeseen outcomes?

One important point of reference is the "stakeholders" in conflict resolution training -- the people involved in a conflict, the funders who support conflict resolution training (and sometimes those who provide them with the money, e.g. taxpayers), the people receiving the training and those doing the training. In deciding what approach to take to a given conflict, Clem noted that it is "often those on the outside who are least aware of the organic and dynamic nature of a situation."

"While it is necessary for evaluative purposes to have clear objectives against which to measure performance, the objectives themselves will reflect the perceptions of those who set them.

"It would seem to be dishonest to invest in an activity which has the declared aim of repsonding to community perceptions of need and appropriate action, but impose criteria for evaluation of its performance which come from elsewhere.

"While the community should be the primary source of the definition of criteria for the evaluation of performance, this must be compatible with the overall objectives and values of community development."

Clem also suggested that establishing assessment criteria for training exercises should be a dynamic and inclusive experience. If everyone owns the process then those involved will trust the assessment criteria.

One model of planning and implementation that can be used in assessing the delivery of conflict resolution training is the traditional one, which illustrates a progression from policy aims, to policy implementation, implementation's impact on the external environment, to policy outcomes. Ideally, Clem suggested, implementation should be carried out with equity, justice and fairness. In implementation, measurable inputs (planning, organisation, material and human resources), lead to outputs (measurable events, reports, etcetera). One criterion for judging success should be the level of efficiency of the use of the inputs. Efficiency is related to how effective the policy became, what was done was right and how economical or wasteful the process was. However, the crucial measure of effectiveness should be positive outcomes which reflect original policy aims.

Measured against a given model, it is possible to come to positive or negative conclusions about the process and the outcomes -- that the original idea was a bad one, that the practitioner misjudged the situation, that the exercise "was really quite pointless" and should not have taken place, or should not have taken place with the people involved.

Regarding context, Clem noted that whatever the context and however an intervention is formulated to affect processes within a certain context, change agents within that context can deflect the original intention. For consistency's sake, where practitioners are taking into account a broad social dynamic, it makes sense that their preparation should also be broad, as well as their evaluation of the process. Conflict resolution trainers should also be aware or try to become aware of what is it about the situation that makes a particular intervention work and what it displaces. In other words, can you know with any certainty whether what you have done has stopped something else from happening, either with positive or negative effect.

newsletter  |  ccts