Hebrew

University of Jerusalem

Center for Glocal Studies

EVALUATION PROPOSAL
MAGUARÉ: Memoria, Vida y Construcción

Seminar: Program Evaluation for Community Development and Social Change
Teacher: Dr. Nancy Strichman
Participant: Oscar Santiago Vargas Guevara
Student I.D.: 777933631
E-Mail: osvg1905@hotmail.com




January 22nd, 2019


 EVALUATION PROPOSAL
MAGUARÉ: Memoria, Vida y Construcción

INTRODUCTION

In March 2017, the Fundación Escuelas de Paz (FEP), FEP, the Corporación de Investigación y
Acción Social (CIASE) and PRANA Incubadora de Industrias Creativas kickstarted a two-year
programme in four municipalities in Colombia, affected by the armed conflict, with a grant from
the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The programme, entitled MAGUARÉ:
Memoria, Vida y Construcción, aimed to foster reconciliation and economic development
through the recovery of collective memory, the strengthening of social capital and the support
of cultural entrepreneurship projects. With the objective of evaluating outcomes, the FEP
appointed Oscar Vargas, who was active in the designing of the project, to carry out an internal
evaluation. This evaluation proposal includes the general scope of the project evaluation, its
intended methodology for gathering and analyzing data, as well as a review of how similar
projects approach this sort of evaluations on the field.

EVALUATION SCOPE

The general research question of this evaluation is:

How has the FEP’s Maguaré project fostered the reconstruction of social capital in the San
Vicente del Caguán municipality?

This overarching question answers to the following specific objectives.

1. To evaluate the short and mid-term results of the project’s 12-month process with its
first cohort of participants in San Vicente del Caguán in terms of social capital
generation.
2. To genereate insights and recommendations that can help the organization better plan
future projects.
3. To collect specific narratives of positive transformation brought about by the project.
The research team adopts Bourdieu’s definition of social capital as “the aggregate of the actual
or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”1. Putnam elaborates:
“[w]hereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties
of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the
norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. A society of many virtuous but
isolated individuals is not necessary rich in social capital”2. In these terms, this evaluation looks
at how relationships of trust have developed between members of the community, how negative
perceptions of the Other have been deconstructed, and, more generally, how inclined
community members are to helping eachother out and working together.

In analyzing the project’s effect on social capital, we gear our leading questions towards three
main criteria: effectiveness, relevance and coherence. For the first two criteria, the research team
leans onto the definitions proposed by the OECD; i.e. effectiveness as “the extent to which the
development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking
into account their relative importance”3; and relevance as “the extent to which the objecgives of
a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs,
global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies”4. Finally, we define coherence as the degree
to which the different processes of the project (i.e. recovery of collective memory, cultural
entrepreneurship start-ups, etc.) synergize to strengthen social capital in the community. This
last criterion is quite relevant, considering that the project is implemented in tandem by three
independent organizations with a specific profile and agenda – there is room for conflict and
misunderstanding, which should be part of the evaluation5.

1
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) The Forms of Capital. In: J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, p. 249
2
Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon
& Schuster, p. 19
3
OECD-DAC (2002) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, Paris: OECD, p. 20
4
Íbid, p. 32
5
The research team takes inspiration from Search for Common Ground’s (SFCG) report of the project
“Supporting a Conversation on Youth Leadership in Côte d’Ivoire” in the definition of our first two evaluation
criteria. However, while SFCG defines its third criterion Coherence/Coordination as “the degree to which the
intervention is consistent with or aligned to the larger policy contexts within which it is taking place”, we aim
it not so much at the external political context, but at how the project’s internal processes interact and
The intended audience for this evaluation is the staff of all three implementing organizations:
FEP, CIASE and Prana. As such, this report aims to provide a platform for institutional learning,
which could be useful for similar projects in the future. While this may help give certain
accountability to USAID on the accomplishments of the process, this is not our main objective.
For this reason, collected data will be qualitative in nature, which allows the researcher to delve
into the material and understand the underlying meanings and relations within a community.
While we encourage an iteration of this research with quantitative methods, in order to
strengthen observed patterns, we are first and foremost interested in informing the pedagogical
process, which requires a more nuanced approach to individuals and collectives. Similarly, this
evaluation is committed to the principles of participatory action research, which can be defined
as “a democratic and participative orientation to knowledge creation […] a pragmatic co-creation
of knowing with, not on or about, people”6. More about our methodology below.

Considering that the project is far too large in scope to evaluate as a whole, covering four
municipalities and two one-year long processes with two different participant cohorts, this report
limits its scope to the first cohort in one community: San Vicente del Caguán, mounting to 30
direct beneficiaries in a one-year timespan (March 2017 – March 2018). Beyond financial
considerations, there are several reasons for this reduction of the geographic scope. The four
municipalities where the project was implemented share several similarities: (1) all four
municipalities were deeply affected by the armed conflict, considering that the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) had a presence in all of them and clashes with the military
were frequent; (2) in all municipalities, inhabitants rely on livestock as their main legal source of
income; (3) all municipalities currently face an influx of returning migrants from urban centres,
who had been previously displaced by the conflict. Considering these similarities, some of the
findings of this evaluation can be extrapolated to all four intervened municipalities.

synergize. Gouley, Clotilde; Kanyatsi, Quentin (2010) “Final Evaluation of the Project ‘Supporting a
Conversation on Youth Leadership in Côte d’Ivoire”, Search for Common Ground in Côte d’Ivoire.
6
Bradbury, Hilary (2015) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London:
SAGE, p. 11
The data gathering and analysis would foreseeably take place some time in March 2019, one year
after the end of the first cohort’s process. Thus, it makes sense to limit observations of impact to
the short and medium term. To account for shorter term impact, we will analyse changes of
individual attitudes amongst the direct beneficiaries of the programme. Specifically, we will
observe changes in their sense of self-efficacy, in their perception of different groups within the
community (e.g. indigenous/afro/minority groups, returning migrants, reintegrating former FARC
combatants, etc.), and in their stated willingness to work together with members of these groups.
In the medium term, we will inquire about new practices being introduced by the direct
beneficiaries into their communities that effectively help construct social capital. While this
includes more informal attempts, such as personal conversations, we are specifically interested
in how the participant-led construction of a site of memory, their writing of a local ethnography,
as well as their cultural entrepreneurship projects (See Annex 1 for the project’s Theory of
Change and a breakdown of its activities and outputs) have contributed to shift perceptions at a
community level.

CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The prolonged and complex armed conflict in Colombia has been the main driver of a mass
displacement from rural areas towards the main urban centres throughout the last five decades.
Today, it is calculated that 8,3 million hectares of land have been forcefully annexed or
abandoned7. Besides of the negative economic and psicosocial effects suffered by those in
conditions of those uprooted, the consequences of forced displacement go beyond. “Not only
have we lost the people, we have also lost their teachings, their ‘cultural patrimony’, their
experience in dealing with specific issues, their traditions, the legacy they leave behind”8. This
results in a complex psicosocial situation of unbelonging, which implies disorientation,
frustration, fear and insecurity. The end of the armed conflict, on the other hand, also represents

7
Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (2015) “Una Nación Desplazada: Informe Nacional del
Desplazamiento Forzado en Colombia”, CNMH: Bogotá p. 16
8
Gómez, Oscar: “Memoria, Identidad y Cultura para el Fortalecimiento organizativo”, ed. Elena Martin, Own
translation, Bogotá: Corporación Apoyo a Víctimas de violencia Sociopolítica Pro Recuperación Emocional
(2002), p. 25
challenges for the low-scale agricultural sector, either in the transition towards legal crops or in
the diversification of their productive activity. Although the return of many victims of forced
displacement to their homes is expected, as an integral component of the postconflict, the lack
of economic possibilities raises doubts about the sustainability of said migration.

With the objective of tackling these challenges, the FEP kickstarted the programme MAGUARÉ:
Memoria, Vida y Construcción with a USAID grant in March 2017. The Maguaré is “a percussion
instrument, used for ritual and social communication since many hundreds of years by several
native groups in the Amazonian rainforest. It is simultaneously a symbol of union and
communion”9. Along these principled lines, the eponymous project was aimed at youth in four
municipalities that suffered the consequences of the Colombian armed conflict, and it intended
to develop cultural entrepreneurship on the basis of community resilience and a culture of peace.
Through entrepreneurship, MAGUARÉ intended to empower a group of female and male youth
as agents of change, while simultaneously creating opportunities for social and economic
inclusion. Cultural entrepreneurships are understood here as a productive initiative in the
framework of cultural industries, i.e. “industries that combine the creation, production and
commercialization of contents that are intangible and cultural in nature”10.

To this end, the project integrated three components/processes, each with a specific set of
objectives and activities: (1) Collective Memory, (2) Reconstruction of Cultural Identity, (3)
Cultural Entrepreneurship. The first two processes aimed to acknowledge individual and
collective memory; and re-appropriate regional and local identities and practices in line with
cultural, productive and environmental traditions. These findings constitute the basis on which
participants started to formulate project proposals of cultural entrepreneurship during the third
and final process. From these proposals, the most promising ones were selected by an
independent committee; these subsequently received a seed capital of 500 USD, as well as
technical assistance and follow-up during its first year of execution. These three processes are
chronological, and they build on each other (for a graphic interpretation of the project’s Theory

9
Editorial (2018) “Presentación”, Maguaré: Revista del Departamento de Antropología 32(1), Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, pg. 3, Own translation
10
UNESCO (2000) Culture, Trade and Globalization: Questions and Answers, Paris: UNESCO, pg. 11
of Change, see Annex 1). Due to the necessity of employing a varied range of expertise for each
individual process, the project was developed together by three organizations, each with a
specific area of expertise: FEP, CIASE, and PRANA.

The project was carried out in four municipalities: San Vicente del Caguán, Florencia, Arauca and
Arauquita. The number of participants per municipality was determined based on the
municipality’s total population, in order to avoid selection bias. In order to guarantee a gender
balance, as well as a representation of minorities, at least 40% of participants were meant to be
women, and at least 10% members of afro-descendant and/or indigenous populations.
Additionally, the entire project was meant to last two full years, comprising the same set of
activities and processes for two cohorts per community, one each year. In total, the project
intended to have 320 direct, and 2400 indirect beneficiaries.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In planning this evaluation, the team has withdrawn inspiration from other organizations with
similar objectives. Interestingly, little to no research has been committed to projects that employ
either cultural entrepreneurship and collective memory construction with the generation of
social capital, although material on each specific component does exist11. This lack of work
committed to this interaction could point at possible room for innovation in the part of FEP – it
however also represents challenges – there is a great deal of experimentality and risk associated
to this project. Regardless, we do found the methodological discussion ahead on several
materials from related areas, such as work with youth and social dialogue.

SFCG’s project “Supporting a conversation on youth leadership in Côte d’Ivoire”, which aimed at
increasing the youth’s engagement in local political processes, for instance, makes a case for
including focus group discussions as part of the fieldwork. Instead of relying on individual

11
Afolabi, Taiwo: “A study of cultural entrepreneruship approaches of Terra Kulture”, in: Z. Kofoworola, M.
Owusu & A. Adeoye (eds.). African Theatre: Studies in Theory and Criticism. Ghana: Methodist University
College & Nigeria: University of Ilorin, Pgs. 468-482 / Soerjoatmodjo, Yudhi (2017) “Creative Entrepreneurship
Hub Assessment”, Cultural Entrepreneurship Hubs, URL: https://cultural-entrepreneurship.org/surakata/
[Accessed on: 04/12/2018]
interviews, which heavily rely on how the interviewer structures questions and can blend out
topics of importance, SFCG also brings the question directly to the community during group
sessions. The themes delivered here can help structure the future data generation.

In order to include a participatory approach – which we delve into more in detail below –, the
research team based its design for the focus group discussions on Action Aid’s 2011 project
“Women and the City”, which aimed to “investigate women’s safety in cities and urban spaces”12
in Brazil, Nepal and Cambodia. Instead of structuring group discussions simply by a set of pre-
established questions, Action Aid had women draw their community on a large piece of paper,
detailing key security and safety issues. Similarly, CHP International and Peace Corps Paraguay
employed social maps to outline perceived health, income and educational levels in the
community of Fortín Falcón, Paraguay13.

In a literature review on the measurement of social capital, the OECD Statistics Directorate
recognizes four main interpretations of social capital, each with their own themes and methods
of inquiry: personal relationships, social network support, civic engagement, and trust and
cooperative norms14. While all these different understandings inform our take on social capital,
two of them stand out: personal relationships, and general trust. Some themes and questions
relevant for these two understandings are outlined below – they will inform construction of the
guidelines for both group discussions and semi-structured interviews. For personal relationships,
the following sample questions stood out: “how often are youusually in contact with friends
outside the household?”, “how many of your close friends live in the same city as you?”, “Think
of all the friends you had contact with in the past month, how many of them have the same
mother tongue as you? How many are from the same ethnic group? How many are from the
same household income group?”, “Are you satisfied with the relations with your neighbors?”15.
In regards to generalized trust, the following sample questions are of note: “Generally speaking,

12
Taylor, Alice (2011) “Women and the City”, Action Aid, p. 6
13
Doll, J; Toness, Anna (2001) Diagnóstico y planificación rural participativa de la comunidad Colonia Fortín
Falcón, Asunción: CHP International.
14
Scrivens, Katherine; Smith, Conal (2013) “Four Interpretations of Social Capital: An Agenda for
Measurement”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, Paris: OECD
15
Íbid. Pgs. 44-46
would you say that most people in your neighborhood can be trusted or that you need to be very
careful in dealing with them?”, “Would you say that most people most of the time try to be
helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves?”, “Have you helped a stranger, or
someone from a different social group in the past month?”.

METHODOLOGY

As teased out above, this qualitative research is committed to the principles of participatory
action research (PAR), in which participants and community members are actively integrated into
the evaluation process. While the facilitator proposes and upholds a certain structure of
interaction, it is participants who place the themes on the table, that are of relevance to them,
thus fighting back researcher bias, and bringing us back to Spivak’s renowned adage “can the
subaltern speak?”16. “The participatory research process enables co-researchers to step back
cognitively from familiar routines, forms of interaction, and power relationships in order to
fundamentally question and rethink established interpretations of situations and strategies”17.
Also fundamental to this approach: both sides, the researcher and the community, benefit from
the process. While the researcher gains insight into the participants’ very own hierarchies of
meaning and priority – instead of subconsciously imposing his/her own –, the community should
also gain insight into its own workings, while being able to imprint its own voice on the results.
Thus, in the context of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), even an evaluative process, i.e. one
that is done at the end of a project to observe mid- and long-term results, that claims to be
participatory is also necessarily formative in nature – not formative towards the organization,
but towards the community. Beyond these theoretical considerations, PAR also bears some
benefits on the ground: the process inspires confidence in the community, it encourages broad
participation, and its methods lead to consensus, commitment and subsequently to action on the
part of the community18.

16
Spivak, Gayatri (1988) “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In: C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (eds.) Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture, Macmillan Education: Basgingstoe, p. 271-313
17
Bergold, Jarg; Thomas, Stefan (2012) “Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in
Motion” in: Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), p. 2
18
Higgins, Eileen; Toness, Anna: “Participatory Planning and Action: Eight Steps for Facilitators” p. 3
The evaluation will be conducted in three main phases:

1. Desk study: documental review and preparation of the evaluation (01/03/19 – 07/03/19)
2. Field work in San Vicente del Caguán (08/03/19 – 18/03/19)
3. Data analysis and report writing (19/03/19 – 31/03/19)

During the first stage of the process, the evaluation team will conduct a review of project
document and relevant reports on the country and regional context. These documents include:
(1) Grant proposal submitted to USAID, (2) Evaluation surveys and tests handed out to
participants routinely by the organization at the end of each activity, (3) Correspondance
between implementing organizations and minutes from coordination meetings, (4)
Advertisement materials for the project used in the target community, (5) local daily newspapers
(El Pilón, RPT Noticias, El Heraldo, Semana, El Tiempo). At the end of this documentation review,
the research team will develop the guidelines for the data collection during the next stage.
Considering that the evaluation is internal, and the lead evaluator was actively involved in the
drafting of the original grant proposal to USAID, albeit not in its implementation, holding a
workshop with FEP staff on the project’s Theory of Change is deemed unnecessary at this stage
(See Annex 1 for a graphic illustration of the project’s ToC). During this first stage, the research
team will similarly coordinate with FEP staff on the ground, who will be tasked with setting up
interviews and inviting community members to the community mapping sessions.

Data collection on the field will consist of two main methods: social community mapping and
semi-structured interviews. Participatory mapping, on the one hand, “allows a group to share
information about a geographic location. Because everyone knows his or her community,
drawing a Community Map is a stimulating exercise to start the session. It allows groups to create
shared knowledge”19 . During five two-hour long group sessions, participants will be asked to
draw a map of their community on a large piece of paper. When they are done, a discussion is
facilitated, making an emphasis on why specific things are highlighted. Of particular interest for
this evaluation is how participants and indirect beneficiaries experienced the activities and
results of the project. Also, it inquires into how they perceive members from different groups in

19
Higgins, Eileen; Toness, Anna: “Participatory Planning and Action: Eight Steps for Facilitators” p. 13
the community, including indigenous/afro/minority groups, returning migrants, reintegrating
former FARC combatants, etc., and if/how perceptions on these spaces and identities have
shifted throughout the past year. In order to obtain a more reliable picture, this exercise will be
repeated several times with different populations in order to offer a separate session to each of
the referred groups. Allowing them to interact with other members of their own group only may
encourage participation and dialogue, while also granting an insight into the more specific and
localized perceptions of the Other within each group.

Based on the information gathered during the community mapping sessions, the research team
will conduct at least 20 semi-structured interviews with direct beneficiaries of the programme,
local leaders and other community members with the purpose of deepening understanding on
the themes brought up before. Interviews will be narrative in nature, i.e. an emphasis is laid on
allowing the interviewee to develop his/her narrative around a specific event or issue. As the
interview transcurs, the interviewer will offer five or six leading questions or inputs in order to
elicit narrations about the interviewees personal experience. Once this initial response is
exhausted, the interviewer will ask a series of follow-up questions if the specific themes of
interest were not touched upon by the interviewee.

There are a couple limitations to this study: there is no baseline study about the observed
parameters. This means that the study’s findings cannot be compared and contrasted with how
the community was before the intervention. Secondly, this research limits itself to analyzing how
the several project components contributed to construct social capital in the target community.
As such, it is unable to conclude about the other two project objectives: recovering collective
memory and eencouragin economic development through cultural entrepreneurship. In terms of
its geographic scope, this evaluation’s findings may tease out similar dynamics in all intervened
municipalities, considering the commonalities described above. However, it does not claim
generalizeability. Furthermore, San Vicente del Caguán is a highly intervened community, with
many organizations hosting independent projects. This means it will be difficult to ascribe sole
responsibility for the perceived increase/decrease in social capital to MAGUARÉ. Particulatly in
such a context, these developments are multicausal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afolabi, Taiwo: “A study of cultural entrepreneruship approaches of Terra Kulture”, in: Z. Kofoworola, M.
Owusu & A. Adeoye (eds.). African Theatre: Studies in Theory and Criticism. Ghana: Methodist University
College & Nigeria: University of Ilorin
Bergold, Jarg; Thomas, Stefan (2012) “Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion”
in: Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1)
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) The Forms of Capital. In: J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood
Bradbury, Hilary (2015) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London:
SAGE
Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (2015) “Una Nación Desplazada: Informe Nacional del Desplazamiento
Forzado en Colombia”, CNMH: Bogotá
Doll, J; Toness, Anna (2001) Diagnóstico y planificación rural participativa de la comunidad Colonia Fortín
Falcón, Asunción: CHP International.
Editorial (2018) “Presentación”, Maguaré: Revista del Departamento de Antropología 32(1), Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, pg. 3, Own translation
Gainer, Brenda (2016) “Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations”, In: D. Renz & R. Herman: The Josey-Bass
Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, New York: Wiley
Gómez, Oscar: “Memoria, Identidad y Cultura para el Fortalecimiento organizativo”, ed. Elena Martin, Own
translation, Bogotá: Corporación Apoyo a Víctimas de violencia Sociopolítica Pro Recuperación Emocional
(2002)
Gouley, Clotilde; Kanyatsi, Quentin (2010) “Final Evaluation of the Project ‘Supporting a Conversation on Youth
Leadership in Côte d’Ivoire”, Search for Common Ground in Côte d’Ivoire.
Higgins, Eileen; Toness, Anna: “Participatory Planning and Action: Eight Steps for Facilitators”
Mercy Corps (n.d.) Evaluation and Assessment of Poverty and Conflict Interventions, Portland: Mercy Corps
Morra Imas, Linda; Rist, Ray (2009) The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development
Evaluations, The World Bank
OECD-DAC (2002) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, Paris: OECD
Oxfam (2014) Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods for Women & Vulnerable Groups in Chiradzulu district: Project
Effectiveness Review, Malawi: Oxfam GB
Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &
Schuster
Scrivens, Katherine; Smith, Conal (2013) “Four Interpretations of Social Capital: An Agenda for Measurement”,
OECD Statistics Working Papers, Paris: OECD
Spivak, Gayatri (1988) “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In: C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (eds.) Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture, Macmillan Education: Basgingstoe
Soerjoatmodjo, Yudhi (2017) “Creative Entrepreneurship Hub Assessment”, Cultural Entrepreneurship Hubs,
URL: https://cultural-entrepreneurship.org/surakata/ [Accessed on: 04/12/2018]
Taylor, Alice (2011) “Women and the City”, Action Aid
UNESCO (2000) Culture, Trade and Globalization: Questions and Answers, Paris: UNESCO
ANNEX 1: THEORY OF CHANGE

There are both strengths and weaknesses to this approach. Its largest advantage is that it allows
an eagle-eye view of the project as a whole. Rather than looking at the dynamics and possible
flaws within each of the components – also an important task on its own –, it centers our
attention on the linkages between them. It does not analyze whether a specific module, e.g.
‘collective time-line building’, or ‘a map of myself’ is effective at attaining set specific objectives,
such as developing the participant’s sense of self-awareness and self-efficacy, or encouraging
positive dialogue and exchange about collective traumatic experiences. Instead, it sets an accent
on whether work and discussion on individual memory, as well as the promotion of dialogue and
self-observation through ethnographic tools, can indeed foster an entrepreneurial spirit focused
on cultural industries. Given the complexity of this project – as seen in the amount of themes it
deals with and the number of organizations involved –, it seems more urgent to carry out a global
examination of its underlying logic.

On the downside, looking at such a complex project globally presents the challenge of unavailable
relevant literature. Since the three project components stem from radically different academic
and programmatic traditions, the respective methodological literature diverges significantly. For
instance, existing literature on cultural entrepreneurship focuses almost solely on the business
and marketing plans of the individual entrepreneurships, rather than on the pedagogical process
itself. For instance, Afolabi’s discussion of Terra Kulture’s approach to cultural entrepreneurship
in Nigeria simplifies the process into four main criteria: (1) purpose of the cultural institution, (2)
audience, (3) artistic growth, and (4) artistic quality of cultural activity20. This approach somewhat
echoes Gainer’s typology of the four key pillars of marketing: (1) product, (2) place, (3) price, and
(4) promotion21. A similar issue presents itself in the organizational assessment of the Surakata
Cultural Entrepreneurship Hub in Indonesia22; the evaluation delves into the entire pedagogical
process, as well as the stakeholders involved and their stated social goal. However, it is unable

20
Afolabi, Taiwo: “A study of cultural entrepreneruship approaches of Terra Kulture”, in: Z. Kofoworola, M.
Owusu & A. Adeoye (eds.). African Theatre: Studies in Theory and Criticism. Ghana: Methodist University
College & Nigeria: University of Ilorin, Pgs. 468-482
21
Gainer, Brenda (2016) “Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations”, In: D. Renz & R. Herman: The Josey-Bass
Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, New York: Wiley, pgs. 366-395
22
Soerjoatmodjo, Yudhi (2017) “Creative Entrepreneurship Hub Assessment”, Cultural Entrepreneurship
Hubs, URL: https://cultural-entrepreneurship.org/surakata/ [Accessed on: 04/12/2018]
to establish clear links between the activities and short, mid, and long term outcomes. While
these grounded approaches are very relevant to determining the viability of individual
businesses, they fail to account for their broader impact in society as a whole.

I adapt Morra Imas and Rist’s more general model of a Theory of Change23. The goal above refers
to the abstract vision of the program, which does not foreclose interventions by different actors
or changing social dynamics. I elaborate on the central assumptions of the project, which include
both an appreciation of the problem, as well as the central logical dynamics of the project.
‘Resources’ refers to all the human, material, and social capital brought in by the three
organisations involved in the project. I then delve into the causality chain of the project, from
inputs – I merge Morra Imas and Rist’s inputs and activities in a single category –, through outputs
to outcomes, the latter ones further classified in short, medium and long term. Furthermore, I
classify inputs and outputs within the three components of the project: (1) Collective Memory,
(2) Reconstruction of Cultural Identity, (3) Cultural Entrepreneurship. As teased out above, the
main use of this general theory of change lies in highlighting the relation between concrete
activities on the ground, results, and outcomes. Finally, making external factors explicit can help
understand a project’s failure of success – this is particularly the case in areas of fragile statehood
and environmental vulnerability.

Additionally, compared to other tools such as the logical framework, this theory of change model
brooches the more specific aspects of implementation, such as the concrete activities and the
outputs expected. This contrasts with a logical framework relying solely on general dynamics,
such as the ones presented by Mercy Corps24 and Oxfam25. In both cases, diagrams showcase
processes in a more-or-less causal representation that centers on general processes and their
outcomes for other processes; one of the simpler depicted dynamics reads: ‘awareness-raising
on gender-baised violence’ => ‘improved attitudes to gender-based violence’ => ‘reduction in

23
Morra Imas, Linda; Rist, Ray (2009) The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development
Evaluations, The World Bank, pg. 152
24
Mercy Corps (n.d.) Evaluation and Assessment of Poverty and Conflict Interventions, Portland: Mercy Corps,
pg. 10
25
Oxfam (2014) Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods for Women & Vulnerable Groups in Chiradzulu district:
Project Effectiveness Review, Malawi: Oxfam GB, pg. 4
incidence of gender-based violence’26. Little to no attention, however, is devoted to the actual
activities employed on the ground to further these goals and processes. This is a conundrum to
look into for the evaluation itself – while the format used below priorizes concrete activities and
results, it also overshadows the actual processes and dynamics that underlie the project, which
may prove to be a considerable liability when evaluating impact.

Arguably, the decision of which model to employ could be reduced in the end to the purpose of
the evaluation, and its time of execution. If, for instance, the evaluation is formative, i.e. carried
out while the project is still ongoing – possibly between cohorts 1 and 2 –, the logical framework
discussed would make more sense since mid- and long-term outcomes are not yet observable
and we could rather analyse the linkages between project components. If, on the other hand, I
am conducting an evaluative assessment, i.e. focusing on outcomes after the end of the project,
the theory of change model below could prove more useful. It remains an open question to me
whether it could be productive to keep both models in mind throughout the assessment, and to
delve into these two different dynamics in parallel.

26
Ibid. Pg 4