|
|
| |
| Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and the Performance of Projects: A Critical Review |
Olala, Gilbert Owuor and Nyonje, Raphael
|
Abstract:
Authors and reviewers are endowed with the capability of writing and reviewing articles. However, they sometimes face challenges in observing expected standards in writing quality papers. The challenges are perhaps attributed to lack of either meticulousness or just negligence on part of the reviewers/authors. It is because of this that five selected journal articles about the effect of monitoring and evaluation practices on performance of projects have been reviewed to evaluate their conformity to basic quality research standards. The review was conducted through desk research. Monitoring and evaluation practices and project performance concepts were identified, disaggregated and entered into academic search engines to produce sought for articles. The quality of the articles were then evaluated by scrutinizing the purpose/objectives of the study, the hypothesis of the study, the study design, the sample design, data collection methods, data analysis methods and findings. Although monitoring and evaluation practices had statistically significant influence on performance of projects, some gaps were evident in methodology, which perhaps affected the findings. First, study design- use of descriptive design which elicits relationships or describes the world as it exists and cross sectional design which studies participants at one point in time are perhaps not consistent with cause-effect studies exhibited in the articles. More so, despite the fact that justification of study design improves the quality of findings, in some articles, it was overlooked. Second, sample design- while some articles did not specify sample determination models, others neither specified nor justified sampling techniques, which perhaps weakened the strength of research findings. Third, although, the dominant data collection instrument was questionnaire, as a way of quality control, neither validity nor reliability tests were performed. Fourth, in spite of the fact that research involves people and calls for observation of ethical standards, there was no evidence of ethical practice in the articles undermining the validity of the findings. Last, the findings of research should be discussed for authentication. Nevertheless, there was no evidence of discussions of findings in the articles. The paper recommends: continued research in monitoring and evaluation as a discipline to strengthen its application in projects; and taking extra caution in structuring research methodology as it forms the basis of credible research findings.
|
|
|
| | |