Evaluation in complex programs can face contradictory requirements. An article in Evaluation recognises and accommodates these contradictory elements as paradoxes. The article identifies five paradoxes: (1) the paradox of purpose—between accountability and learning; (2) the paradox of position—between autonomy and involvement (3) the paradox of permeability—between openness and closedness; (4) the paradox of method—between rigor and flexibility; and (5) the paradox of acceptance—between credibility and feasibility.
About monitoring and evaluation systems
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems operate at the interface of multiple actors such as implementors or accountability officers. Each have their own functions and expectations and so the organisation of M&E systems can be diverse in response to the variety of requirements and demands. This inevitably involves design choices and management decisions, The most notable contradictory demand in M&E relates to the dual function of monitoring for improvement versus evaluating for accountability.
Understanding paradoxes
A significant challenge for M&E is the development and management of organisational structures and processes, including priority-setting, stakeholder management and allocation of resources. This can necessitate navigating competing demands and perspectives. Paradoxical thinking acknowledges and accommodates the contradictions inherent to evaluation practice.
Paradoxes are part and parcel of everyday life. Paradoxes refer to contradictory but interdependent elements of organisations that, in isolation, seem logical, but are oppositional and inconsistent in combination. As a result of paradoxes, tensions may arise. These tensions may distort relationships and reduce functioning and effectiveness of organisations.
Five paradoxes in M&E
1. The paradox of purpose—Balancing learning and accountability
This paradox and refers to contradiction between two functions of M&E systems: that of learning and that of accountability. This contradiction arises from the dual purpose that M&E systems usually serve. On the one hand, M&E systems are supposed to demonstrate a program’s successes and achievements for accountability. On the other they serve to identify a program’s mistakes to inform learning. This results in the opposite requirements of using a system to demonstrate rights versus wrongs.
2. The paradox of position—Balancing involvement and autonomy
This concerns the position of the evaluator vis-à-vis the program it assesses. The paradox emerges because of competing demands regarding the position of the evaluator. On the one hand, the evaluator needs to maintain autonomy vis-à-vis what is being evaluated to ensure objectivity of the evaluator and resulting reliability of the evaluation. On the other hand, evaluators should be involved and aware of what is going on within a program to facilitate the use of insights for learning purposes.
3. The paradox of permeability—Accommodating openness and closedness
This paradox reflects two competing logics about how the environment should be engaged in the M&E system. On the one hand, the logic of openness suggests that engaging practitioners in the design and implementation of the M&E system enhances the relevance of evaluation. On the other hand, the logic of closedness suggests that insulating the M&E system from its environment is necessary for efficient performance.
4. The paradox of method—Combining rigor and flexibility
This concerns the contradiction arising from the competing logics about how M&E system should be designed to deliver optimal results. On the one hand, they should have rigorous systems to safeguard reliability and enable comparability across time, projects, and contexts. On the other hand, they must be sufficiently flexible to respond to dynamic and non-linear realities. As a result, M&E systems face a seemingly paradoxical demand: to be adaptable and adjustable in design, while simultaneously maintaining the rigour necessary to ensure quality and comparability.
5. The paradox of acceptance—Combining credibility and feasibility
This is a result of contradictions between the logic of credibility and the logic of feasibility. The contradiction lies in the objective to design an M&E system that is acceptable across multiple own users and expectations. This generates a dual demand: to develop an extensive and robust system that draws on substantial time, resources, and data, while simultaneously producing one that is accessible, streamlined, and manageable in practice.
The bottom line
These paradoxes are interconnected and together increase the pressure on M&E systems and teams. The five paradoxes identified in the article—purpose, position, permeability, method, and acceptance—are especially relevant for complex programs operating in challenging policy environments.
Naming these tensions provides a practical means for discussing the competing demands placed on M&E. Using the paradox lens helps practitioners recognise and navigate these trade-offs rather than attempt to eliminate them. From this perspective, the key question is not only how to technically design an M&E system, but whether teams and systems have the capability to manage complexity and balance competing expectations.
Want to read more?
Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: Five key paradoxes - Marijn Faling, Greetje Schouten, and Sietze Vellem, Evaluation, November 2023.