|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Accounting for legacy: Monitoring and evaluation in sport in development relationships|
|Citation:||Kay T (2012) Accounting for legacy: Monitoring and evaluation in sport in development relationships. Sport in Society, 15 (6), pp. 888-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2012.708289|
|Abstract:||Recent years have seen the extension of the Olympic legacy concept to include the use of sport in international development. As in the wider policy area of international development, the external partners that fund sport programmes require in-country accountability for the use of their investment and this has led to monitoring and evaluation (M+E) programmes becoming prominent in knowledge production in sport. Academic and policy debates have emerged around the significant methodological challenges in conducting M+E in international development contexts, but less attention has been paid to the social processes implicit in M+E systems. These processes are significant because of the role of M+E as a mechanism of accountability and control between ‘donors’ and ‘recipients’ of international development aid. Informed by five years experience of evaluating international sport in development programmes and Olympic legacy initiatives, this paper explores this aspect of the role of M+E. It draws on the wider international development literature to examine the role of M+E in the relationship between funders and recipients, especially when M+E practices are problematic. The paper suggests that despite the rhetoric of ‘partnership’ that surrounds sport in development and Olympic legacy programmes, M+E systems play a major role in constructing the donor–recipient relationship as hierarchical. M+E procedures are shaped by funders' information requirements, emphasize external accountability, limit local programme learning, compromise data quality and impose burdensome forms of data collection and reporting that undermine relationships. The paper advocates refocusing M+E approaches to serve internal programme learning needs rather than external funders' determined but inconclusive quest for ‘evidence’.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Kay-SiS-2012.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||223.06 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.