ISSN (Online): 2321-3418
server-injected
Social Sciences and Humanities
Open Access

Assessment processes and principles related to Food Security that Zimbabwe can rely on for insight.

DOI: 10.18535/ijsrm/v9i12.sh01· Pages: 852-862· Vol. 9, No. 12, (2021)· Published: December 15, 2021
PDF
Views: 355 PDF downloads: 183

Abstract

Increasing frequency and intensity of food insecurity in Zimbabwe, amidst heavy investment in Disaster Risk Reduction efforts threaten the achievement of the Zero Hunger target by 2030. The need to interrogate assessment practice need not be overemphasized. An interpretive–constructivist paradigm guided this study, while desktop review, focus group discussions and individual interviews were the main data collection tools. A purposively selected sample, of 85participants from Bulilima, Gwanda, Mangwe, and Umzingwane districts was used. These districts share similar social and cultural characteristics and hazards. The sample consisted of District development coordinators (DDCs), Environmental Management Agency, Rural District Council (RDC) chief executive officers, councillors, traditional leaders (chiefs), NGO managers, and heads of schools, deemed to bring depth into the study. NVivo software was used in data analysis to establish order, structure, and meaning, to ensure coherence, consistency, and quality of research findings and deductions. The study found that the term, “assessment” was variedly understood across disciplines and levels of responsibility, due to the existence of parallel assessment regimes that fragment and weaken assessment practice. Hence, the need to make capacity-building, training and education and stakeholder participation a permanent feature in Zimbabwe. This will promote correct understanding and application of the terms, and increase the knowledge of DRR practice. Assessment practice challenges emanate from the manner in which stakeholders do assessments.  Hence, the need for attitude change and commitment to the pooling of all the resources towards the assessment practice, and adherence to standards and principles that govern assessment.  

Keywords

AssessmentDisaster Risk Reductionprocesses and principlesFood Securitystakeholders

References

  1. A. Brown, 2012. CDC Coffee break: Using mixed methods program evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/cb_july_2012pdf Date of access:30 Jan.2021.Google Scholar ↗
  2. A. Ganti, 2021. Central Limit Theorem (CLT). [web log post] Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/central_limit_.Google Scholar ↗
  3. American heritage dictionary of the English Language. 2016. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.Google Scholar ↗
  4. Austrian Development Agency, 2008. Guidelines for project and programme evaluations. Vienna: Austrian Development Agency, Evaluation Unit.Google Scholar ↗
  5. B. Kahan, & K. Consulting. 2008. Excerpts from review of evaluation frameworks. Regina: Saskatchewan Ministry of Education.Google Scholar ↗
  6. C.T. Fitz-Gibbon, L.L & Morris, Theory-based evaluation,” Evaluation Practice, vol.17 no.2pp.177-184, 1996.Google Scholar ↗
  7. D. LeClair, 2015. The evolution of assessment and its forces of change. https://www.aacsb.edu/blog/2015/september/revolution-of-assessment-and-its-forces-of-change. Date of access:19 Jun. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  8. D. Streatfield and S. Markless. 2010. What is impact assessment and why is it important. In Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries: Theory and Applications (pp. 349-356).Google Scholar ↗
  9. D.B. Yarbrough, “Developing the program evaluation utility standards: Scholarly foundations and collaborative processes,” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 31no.3, 2021Google Scholar ↗
  10. E. J. Sterling, E. Betley, A. Sigouin, A. Gomez, A.Toomey, G. Cullman, C. Malone, A. Pekor, F. Arengo, M.Blair, and C. Filardi, “Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation,” Biological conservation, vol. 209, pp.159-171, 2017.Google Scholar ↗
  11. E. Stern, N. Stame, J. Mayne, K. Forss, R. Davies, and B. Befani. 2012. Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations: Report of a study commissioned by the Department for International Development. London: DFID.Google Scholar ↗
  12. ERIC (Educational Resources Information Centre). 1995. The Program Evaluation Standards. ERIC/AE Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.Google Scholar ↗
  13. H. White, “Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice,” Journal of development effectiveness, vol.1, no.3, pp.271-284, 2009.Google Scholar ↗
  14. H.M.G. Elizondo, 2015. Mining and resource mobilization for social development: the case of Nicaragua. UNRISD working paper 2015–9. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).Google Scholar ↗
  15. I.I Ahmed and M. Lipton, 1999. Impact of structural adjustment on sustainable rural livelihoods: a review of the literature. IDS Working Paper 62. Sussex: Institute for Development Studies.Google Scholar ↗
  16. Investopedia. 2019. Population Definition https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/population.asp Date of access: 17 Jan. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  17. J.C, McDavid and L.R.L Hawthorn. 2006. Program evaluation and performance measurement: an introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar ↗
  18. J.L. Baker. 2000. Evaluating the impact of development projects on poverty. A handbook for practitioners. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.Google Scholar ↗
  19. JCSEE (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation). 1994. The program evaluation standards 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar ↗
  20. K. Sayce and Norrish, P. 2006. Perceptions and practice: an anthology of impact assessment experiences. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation.Google Scholar ↗
  21. K.Farell, M. Kratzmann, S. McWilliam, N. Robinson, S, Saunders, J. Ticknor, & K.White, 2002. Evaluation made very easy, accessible, and logical. Nova Scotia: Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health.Google Scholar ↗
  22. L. Mingchu and D. Lion, “Mixed methods design for an objective – based evaluation of a magnet school assistance project,” Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 28, pp.109 -118, 2005.Google Scholar ↗
  23. M. Scriven. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th edi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar ↗
  24. M. Bamberger, J, Rugh & L. Mabry, 2012. Real world evaluation. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar ↗
  25. M. Melvin and T. H Gary, “Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation,” Evaluation and Program Planning, 38(2013):74-76, 2012.Google Scholar ↗
  26. M. Patel and N. Patel, “Exploring Research Methodology: Review Article,” International Journal of Research and Review, vol.6, no.3, pp. 48-55, 2019.Google Scholar ↗
  27. M. Scriven, M. 2007. Key Evaluation Checklist, Evaluation Checklists Project. University of Michigan.Google Scholar ↗
  28. M.R. Simonson, “Evaluating teaching and learning at a distance,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 71, pp.87-94, 1997Google Scholar ↗
  29. N. Derbinski & T. Reinhardt, 2017. The Evaluation process in 10 steps – a guideline. Berlin: Brot für die Welt –Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e. V.Google Scholar ↗
  30. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2007. Annual report Paris: OECD www.oecd.org. Date of access:26 Sep. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  31. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2010. Evaluating development cooperation: Summary of key norms and standards. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/56/41612905.pdf Date of access: 16 May. 2021Google Scholar ↗
  32. R. Chambers, R. Longhurst & A. Pacey, eds. 1981. Seasonal dimensions to rural poverty (pp. 231-233). London: F. Pinter.Google Scholar ↗
  33. S. Ngwenya, “Reflecting on Early 21st Century Sustainable Livelihood Projects towards Enhancing Food Security and Resilience in Zimbabwe,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science vol. 6, no.10, pp. 35-42, 2021. https://dx.doi.org/1Q.51584/IJRIAS.2021.Google Scholar ↗
  34. S.R. Terrell, “Mixed-methods research methodologies,” The qualitative report, vol. 17, no.1. pp.254-280, 2012. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss1/14 Date of access: 21 Sep. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  35. S.T.T. Li, M. D. Klein, D.F.Balmer, and M.E, Gusic, 2020. Scholarly evaluation of curricula and educational programs: using a systematic approach to produce publishable scholarship. Academic Pediatrics.Google Scholar ↗
  36. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2002. Handbook on monitoring and evaluating for results. New York, NY: UNDP.Google Scholar ↗
  37. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2016. Maize production and marketing in Zimbabwe: policies for a high growth strategy. USAID strategic economic research and analysis. Zimbabwe (sera) program, Nathan Associates Inc.Google Scholar ↗
  38. Webster's New World College Dictionary. 2014. Fifth Edition Copyright © 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.Google Scholar ↗
  39. Webster's New World Law Dictionary. 2010. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. https://www.yourdictionary.com/credibility Date of access: 13 Feb. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  40. Your Dictionary. 2018. Feasibility. https://www.yourdictionary.com/Feasibility Date of access:14 Mar. 2021.Google Scholar ↗
Author details
Sifelani Ngwenya
None
✉ Corresponding Author
👤 View Profile →