Stretching between learning and accountability: Experiences of South African non-governmental organisations

Abstract

This article contributes to knowledge around organisational learning in relation to Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) processes of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).While learning and accountability are two fundamental purposes of M&E, in practice NGOs often perceive donor accountability as the only function of their organisation’s M&E system. Learning through meaningful monitoring of actions is a necessary process to satisfy effective functioning of organisations working on social change.The article is based on action research, which included qualitative methods such as case studies, focus group interview(s), semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with participating organisations from an 18-month Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Development Programme of the Community Development Resource Association, which involved nine South African NGOs. Organisations benefited from the programme through peer learning, consulting and research linked to the programme.The research revealed that NGOs have a perception of M&E as an accountability procedure that has been imposed on them by donor communities and are resistant to it as well as to rigid data collection.Organisations require specific capacities to realise their power and to be able to negotiate more developmental approaches to M&E within their organisations and with donors. The model is suggested that fosters learning in M&E systems and includes two interlinked processes: self-awareness (a sense of core organisational values and intuitive ability) and awareness about the outside world and the effects of organisations’ work.The model for M&E systems can be explored further and help those organisations who are working towards better balance between learning and accountability.

Paradoxes and partnerships: a study of knowledge exploration and exploitation in international development programmes

“…KM is frequently seen as overly focussed on institutional donor and organisational demands, and as a result "for the field, [it] can seem like an extractive process" (INGO focus group participant). Kachur et al (2016) argue that donor accountability takes precedence over learning, in which case accessing partner NGOs' knowledge to exploit complementarities may be sufficient for the INGO. In this case their focus is not on obtaining new knowledge with the potential to change the scope of their own specialised knowledge, and is symptomatic of Buckley et al (2009)'s observation that organisations do not always pursue knowledge transfer with the ambition to learn.…”

Dynamic knowledge management strategy development in international non-governmental organisations

“…Thus, methodologies and frameworks used constrain how knowledge is constructed and expressed (Sanderson & Kindon, 2004). Ostensibly learning and accountability are within the purview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) units; in practice their only function is external donor accountability (Kachur et al, 2016). There is a need to move beyond the limits imposed by such quantitative reporting methods to provide more nuanced analysis (Corbin et al, 2011).…”