Critical Analysis of an Evaluation Essay
Added on 2021-05-30
14 Pages4015 Words273 Views
Running head: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT1A Critical Analysis of Australia’s Humanitarian Assistance to Myanmar Evaluation ReportStudent’s NameInstitution
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT2A critical analysis of an evaluation reportPurposes of and rationale for the evaluation reportThis report is about an evaluation of Australia’s humanitarian support to Myanmar. The evaluation was done by a team that comprises individuals from the Humanitarian Advisory Group, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), DFAT’s gender and social development strategist from South East Asia, and NGO’s and Partnerships Division. The purposeof the evaluation report was to determine whether the humanitarian aid given by the Australian government to Myanmar is effective, relevant, and efficient in the framework of DFAT’s priorities and strategies. The rationale for the evaluation was to provide comprehensive findings and recommendations to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Indeed, the title of this report precisely stated the subject of the paper. The authors endeavored to explicitly evaluate Australia’s humanitarian assistance to Myanmar throughout thepaper by use of different effective methodologies. The introduction of the report is very explicit and gives adequate details on the purposes of the evaluation, gives a background information on why the evaluation was to be done, and explains why the evaluation was conducted specifically to assist towards protracted areas and not to areas affected by other natural disasters such as flooding (Thomas, Boucher & Pulliam, 2015).On the other hand, in the course of writing the introduction of the paper, the authors did not write the statements in a sequential manner. In other words, the information in the introductory part of the report did not lead coherently to the objective of the study. Instead of placing the research done within a context, the authors decided to report on a research that was not done. They reported on South East and Thai-Myanmar boarder which was not part of the
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT3evaluation. Introductory part of a report should be very precise and only give specific details on the purpose of the evaluation, the reason why the research was conducted in that specific way, and the importance of the research. (Cals & Kotz, 2013).Methodology used in the evaluation Due to the fieldwork nature of the report, the research methods employed in the research were qualitative. The qualitative methods used were desk reviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. According to Donovan (2018), this kind of research method was very important in this evaluation in that the feelings and the emotions of the respondents were able to be expressed, first hand data was obtained and analysis of all relevant documents including reports and proposals were done.During the compilation of the report, the authors summarized a well and detailed process undertaken in conducting the research. An explanation of the materials used such as reports, whatprocedures were done and how they were done, were well documented. The sample size of each qualitative method of was equally documented properly. However, while reporting concerning the focus groups, essential information was left out. The report did not state or name the six communities that the people consulted came from assuming there may be more than six communities since the total number of communities in both Kachin and Rakhine states was not written in the report as well. Therefore, because of the above reasons, this particular research methodology of focus groups cannot be duplicated and same results achieved (Kotz & Cals, 2013).All the methods used as indicated in the report had flaws. The purposive sample selectionwas very inadequate since it could lead to a bias. The report states that only selected partner sites could be visited. What was the rationale for selecting the partner sites? What about the other
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT4partner sites? What informed the decision undertaken of not visiting them? Could it be because of safety reasons, inaccessibility reasons? These are some of the questions that could arise in cases of perceived biasness. The report indicates that the purposive sampling strategy was employed due to scarcity of resources such as time constrains without stating satisfactory reasonswhy only three months was allocated for the evaluation. Why couldn’t proper planning with the relevant authorities be done to prevent such avoidable limitations?(Wilson, 2016).Underlying values and principles With refence to humanitarian values and principles, the report only indicates that the Australian government complies with the humanitarian principles. According to OCHA, the humanitarian guiding principles are four and they include; neutrality, humanity, impatience and independence. The principles ensure establishment and maintenance of access to affected people whether in a complex emergency or a natural disaster (Gordon & Donini, 2015). Inasmuch as the recommendations that the Australian government should increase its engagements with relevant ministries within the government of Myanmar, caution should be taken since this is direct involvement with the political affairs of the country which is against the humanitarian principles of independence. According to Van Engeland (2016), the principle of independence requires that humanitarian activities be independent from the political activities that may be showing any interest to areas where the humanitarian aid is being implemented. The findings of the report indicated that the government of Myanmar representatives whowere engaged in the evaluation process were not well conversant with the humanitarian assistance of Australia. Additionally, the report indicates that the government of Australia shares both spending and funding information to the government of Myanmar and that funding to national organizations are done indirectly through Myanmar Humanitarian Fund. Essentially,
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Report on the IFRC Framework 5 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societieslg...
|11
|3669
|93
Evaluation of Humanitarian Response in Myanmarlg...
|18
|4476
|76
Critical Analysis of a Humanitarian Intervention Evaluation Reportlg...
|19
|4235
|378
A Critical Analysis of a Humanitarian Interventionlg...
|16
|4256
|77
Understanding Public Relationslg...
|13
|2784
|371
The Role of Technology in Operation Risk Management and Performance Evaluation in Dubai's Banking Sectorlg...
|51
|16160
|169