Premium
What does resilience imply for development practice? Tools for more coherent programming and evaluation of resilience
Author(s) -
Constas Mark A.,
Mattioli Laura,
Russo Luca
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
development policy review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.671
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1467-7679
pISSN - 0950-6764
DOI - 10.1111/dpr.12518
Subject(s) - resilience (materials science) , computer science , typology , consistency (knowledge bases) , coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) , heuristic , process management , management science , sociology , artificial intelligence , engineering , mathematics , statistics , physics , anthropology , thermodynamics
Motivation The concept of resilience is widely embraced by practitioners and analysts concerned with development and humanitarian aid. It is less clear how to apply the concept in practice. Purpose Two questions are addressed: What makes resilience programmes distinctive or different? How should evaluations of resilience be conducted? Approach and Methods A typology of applications of resilience to development programming and evaluations is proposed. From considering the requirements of the different uses, two practical tools have been devised: the resilience programming matrix (RPM) and the resilience evaluation matrix (REM). Results or Findings The RPM defines six features of programming for resilience, covering concepts and implementation. The REM defines ten features by which to evaluate resilience, covering evaluation design, data analysis, and reporting. Together they aim to foster greater coherence and consistency in applications of resilience. Conclusions and Policy Implications The two heuristic tools offered should foster more dialogue among programme staff, reviewers and evaluators about resilience programming and evaluation. The conceptual frameworks highlight the distinctive features of the concept of resilience.