A review of current thinking around decolonising MEL 

By Lucy Gray and Alison Napier

As part of INTRAC’s work to explore and challenge understandings of decolonisation in the international development and humanitarian sectors, we are talking with our partners and network of consultants about what it actually means to decolonise monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). While building on a series of blogs and events we hosted in 2022, we wanted to understand better what others are thinking about this. Our scoping exercise started with a review of blogs, journal articles, working papers and reports, written by practitioners and academics from Australia, the USA, Africa, Indonesia and Europe.  From this, we produced a short scoping paper, which identifies seven key themes that can be seen as potential entry points for decolonising MEL. This paper was produced with funding from Comic Relief.

1. Standards for MEL: we need to question the ‘rules of the game’, who holds the power in determining what a high standard of MEL is, and re-think whether global evaluation standards, like those of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), are the right standards to apply to our work.  To do that we must first ask “what is the fundamental purpose of MEL and who it is for?” The standards we choose should put the needs of people we are serving at the centre, or at least better balance their needs with those of funders and development organisations. 
2. Knowledge systems: we must recognise multiple knowledges and ways of knowing – most crucially indigenous knowledges – in our MEL practice. These knowledges include both rational ways of knowing, and tacit knowledge based on emotions orfeelings.  
3. Principles and values: decolonising requires re-thinking the principles and values that underpin MEL practices so that these are relevant to indigenous knowledges and cultural norms. For example, the Made in Africa Evaluation concept prioritises principles of inclusion, ownership, resilience, equity and justice, and development justice. 
4. Governance of MEL: shifting the status quo requires a plurality of decision makers in MEL design and delivery, re-balancing power between MEL commissioners, practitioners and those engaged in the process –most importantly local actors and under-represented groups. 
5. Roles and responsibilities: we also need to evolve the perception of the role of the MEL practitioner from so-called expert to facilitator, becoming co-producers of knowledge and co-learners through the MEL process. This requires specific competencies, for example in critical reflexivity, sharing, appreciating, listening and learning. Funders also need to consider their role and the power they bring with their engagement in MEL processes. 
6. Methods and approaches: many discuss the need to adopt MEL methods that are culturally specific and equity focused, and which draw on community strengths and values; approaches that prioritise learning and adaptation over judgment, and peer accountability over accountability to funders. 
7. Focus of MEL: some also advocate for greater focus on measuring the intangibles that may be more relevant to local actors, for example building hope, participation, resilience, dignity, trust, ownership, and local accountability;.There is an argument for measuring the capacity of organisations to effect transformative change, through mutual partnership assessment of all partners; and for evaluations that acknowledge wider systems of change. 

Through this exercise we have recognised that decolonising MEL is as much about transformation of the theoretical underpinnings, philosophies and the structures and systems within which MEL functions as the practices and behaviours of MEL practitioners. We have also come to appreciate that MEL actors from different geographies have vastly different perspectives on how decolonisation of MEL should happen, and this is undoubtedly a result of their individual experience of colonisation and the colonisation of aid. The themes will resonate differently for different development actors –communities, local and national civil society organisations, INGOs, consultants, funders and global development institutions – but can help to consider where each is best placed to act. 

In terms of what our own role should be, we recognise that we are still on a journey of learning and unlearning to challenge ourselves and others about how MEL can contribute to wider efforts to decolonise aid and development.  For us, it is important to work collaboratively with practitioners, including our network of MEL consultants and trainers, that bring both indigenous and other forms of knowledge and expertise, while reflecting on whose needs are being served and the power we hold in the processes for designing and delivering MEL. While the scoping exercise has helped frame our thinking, we are continuing to explore what are the hallmarks of decolonised MEL in practice.