Behavior Change in the Age of Complexity: Implications for Monitoring and Evaluation
Co-hosted with Palladium; Presented by CORE Group’s Social and Behavior Change Working Group
It has often been remarked that the causes and effects of social and behavior change interventions can be difficult to identify and measure. Causality is complex, and change is likely to be due to a wide range of contextual factors. Nevertheless, the complexity of the SBC process is often set aside in favor of correlation-based approaches. It has been argued that correlation-based approaches often fail to provide a better understanding of systems, networks, inter-relationships and the often subtle, ripple effects that are important to long-term change.
During this one-day workshop over 160 people from a multitude of organizations came together to discuss the value, rigor and appropriateness of alternative approaches to measure and evaluate social and behavior change. Lenette Golding from Palladium and Kamden Hoffman from INSIGHT, two of the co-chairs for the CORE Group working group, started off the day by using starling murmurations as a way to explain the process of social and behavior change as an emergent, ongoing and a complex process.
Overlooked Data and Gretna Gree Starling Murmurations: Come Fly with Us (Parachutes Included)!
Joseph Petraglia from Pathfinder International then provided an overview of the complex backdrop against which public health unfolds in light of the expectations we, and our donors, have of evaluation. Then Janine Schooley from PCI and Katherine Fritz from ICRW shared insights on a few approaches that can be used to better understand systems, networks and inter-relationships.
Is Behavior Change the Figure or the Ground? Implications for Evaluation by Joseph Petraglia
Key Trends in Alternative Approaches to Monitoring and Evaluating SBC by Janine Schooley
Moving from Individual to Community Level Evaluation by Katherine Fritz
Following the break, Stephen Rahaim from Palladium facilitated a fun and engaging activity that not only demonstrated the complexity of the SBC but encouraged everyone to expand the creative design of interventions by planning for feedback. Afterwards, Ann Hendrix-Jenkins also from Palladium built on the day’s content, mixed in the systems perspective and offered a case study experiment using outcome harvesting as a tool.
Alternative Approaches: Follow the Feedback, Plan for Adaptation by Stephen Rahaim
Systems Thinking: Working Backwards, Not Backwards Thinking by Ann Hendrix-Jenkins
To close the day Eric Sarriot from USAID’s Maternal and Child Survival Program (MCSP) presented and reflected on the overarching lessons of the day and led a panel discussion with the workshop’s facilitators to discuss ways forward.
Response to the Day and Ways Forward
Other documents presented at or related to the workshop can be found here.