Grounding our work in its historical, social, and cultural contexts is vital because we don’t work in a vacuum – the very fibre of our work is based on a colonial history, with neo-imperialism still dominating the stage. From using Christian language like ‘mission’ to talk about why we care about the work we do, to the underlying assumptions of our roles in making change happen, we are still working in a space that is heavily burdened by oppressive systems, and is a product of those systems itself. These forces shape the lived experiences of the communities we seek to support, and they must be acknowledged in the design, implementation, and analysis of any monitoring, evaluation, and learning process.

But PMEL has an interesting role to play in dismantling them and promoting equitable alternatives. 

We can – and should – take the time to explore and understand the historical forces that have shaped the communities and issues with whom we work. We have to take responsibility to fully research the places and people we work with, their histories, and their political realities. 

This helps to identify power imbalances and legacies of oppression that can influence not only the outcomes of a project but also the methods used to evaluate it. And in doing so we can know which methods further perpetuate those imbalances, so we can actively seek alternatives. 

Not doing so means that our research and PMEL primarily will centre our own needs – often external to the places we work with – and carries a mountain of biases and limitations. At one level this diminishes the value of our research, and in a more real way actively reinforces harmful stereotypes, or perpetuate the very systems of injustice that social impact work aims to dismantle. 

For example, asking people in a post-conflict zone to keep reliving the trauma, and talk about how Objective 1B of your project has helped them means you are asking another person to talk about how you and your work has helped them – rather than creating the spaces for these insights to emerge naturally.

Opening up a space for self-facilitation means you are also automatically applying Most Significant Change as an approach – the community is telling you organically what is emerging as the most valuable for them, without leading questions. 

Another tool is Power Mapping, a participatory method  that visualises the power dynamics within a community or institution. This technique helps us identify who holds power, who is marginalised, and how these dynamics affect decision-making. By understanding the flow of power, we can ensure that evaluations are sensitive to these dynamics and include perspectives from marginalised groups.

Another important approach is Contextual Analysis, which as above involves researching the historical and cultural context of the community before designing any PMEL framework. Should be standard, but you may be shocked at the number of times this basic step is overlooked. 

Resources like the Ethical Research Involving Children (ERIC) guide, though focused on children, provide helpful strategies for working ethically and contextually with vulnerable groups. 

By incorporating historical and contextual analysis, we can design more informed and sensitive evaluations that not only measure impact but also contribute to justice and healing.