Toward

 an  Integral  
Monitoring  and  
Evaluation  
Finding  Ways  to  Assess  Interior  and  Exterior  
Change  in  Sustainable  Development  in  a  Case  
Study  in  Cusco,  Peru.  

By  Gail  Hochachka  and  Sandra  Thomson  

February  2009.  Publication  of  Drishti  -­‐  Centre  for  Integral  
Action  with  research  funds  from  Canada’s  International  
Development  Research  Centre,  Ottawa.    
 
 
  1
 
 
 Table  of  Contents  

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS............................................................................................................................2  

PART  THREE:  INTEGRAL  MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION  FRAMEWORK  (VERSION  
ONE)............................................................................................................................................................3  
INTRODUCING  THE  FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................... 4  
Step  One:  Surfacing  Assumptions ..................................................................................................................5  
Step  Two:  Working  with  Guiding  Principles .............................................................................................8  
Step  Three:  Identifying  Domains  of  Change........................................................................................... 10  
Step  Four:  Identifying  Outcomes................................................................................................................. 11  
Step  Five:  Developing  Criteria  and  Indicators ...................................................................................... 13  
Step  Six:  Selecting  Lines  of  Inquiry  and  Methodologies.................................................................... 14  
Step  Seven:  Carrying-­out  implementation  and  action-­reflection................................................. 16  
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................ 16  
APPENDIX  ONE:  SAMPLE  INSTRUMENTS  FOR  INTEGRATING  METHODOLOGIES  OF  
INTEGRAL  M&E .................................................................................................................................... 18  
PERSONAL  WELL  BEING  QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................ 19  
REFLECTION  JOURNAL ........................................................................................................................................... 20  
FOCUS  GROUPS ........................................................................................................................................................ 21  
ASSESSING  SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT  (SOCIAL  DISCOURSE) ............................................................................. 22  
DEVELOPMENTAL  ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 24  
Assessing  General  Worldview....................................................................................................................... 24  
Interview  Guidelines......................................................................................................................................... 27  
FURTHER  NUANCE  WITH  ASSESSING  SELF-­‐DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 29  
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 37  

2
  

Part  Three:  Integral  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  

(version  one)  

3
  
Introducing  the  Framework  

From our literature review on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of capacity building in
sustainable development work, we found that there are various steps leading up to the
identification of criteria and indicators and methods. Our approach took as broad and
deep a view on the M&E endeavor, beginning with surfacing assumptions and
identifying principles for evaluation, leading to an inquiry on what domains of change
are important to include and monitor. With the domains of change in mind, the particular
outcomes can be identified. This continues with identifying general lines of inquiry that
are resonant with those domains of change, and further identifying what methodologies
are most appropriate for those lines of inquiry. Practitioners then develop criteria and
indicators for each outcome, asking what would indicate change in each domain and
what criteria should they look for in regards to this change. All this then moves into
implementation.

Before we get to the steps, here are some brief recommendations to begin. We
recommend that practitioners:

• Stay grounded—This can get complicated quickly, so we recommend that you

stay grounded with this, keeping the approach as accessible and realistic to your
workload.

• Begin with small projects—Try this out in as accessible way as possible, and then
build out from there.

• Build on what is already known—Identify the methodologies you are already

familiar with and supplement with others that address aspects of change not
currently covered by your existing methods.

• Trust the psychoactive aspects of this process—Some of the methods used in this
framework are what psychologists call “psychoactive” in the sense that they ignite
inquiry and further reflection beyond the boundaries of a single intervention. For
example, creating reflective space in organizations have been found to be
psychoactive in the sense that they foster greater creativity, stretch-goal thinking,
and more innovation.

• Join the dialogue—Contribute your reflections and join the dialogue on this, to
help craft a “version two” of this framework.

The steps are listed below and then described in more detail throughout Part Three.

1. Surfacing assumptions

2. Identifying principles of evaluation

3. Considering domains of change

4
 4. Identifying outcomes

5. Developing criteria and indicators

6. Selecting lines of inquiry and methodologies (with sample instruments included)

7. Carrying-out implementation and action-reflection

Step  One:  Surfacing  Assumptions  

What do the terms “evaluation”, “monitoring,” “criteria” and “indicator” actually refer
to? Before we take our inquiry further, sometimes it is useful to go right back to basics,
regardless of one’s experience, and inquire again not so much the definitions but the
assumptions we hold. Assumptions form a key part of our perspective, and our
perspective discloses what we see and can then act on. Any assumptions that we do not
surface often ends up implicitly setting the frame of what we subsequently see.
Considering we will always have assumptions at play and mental models that operate to
set the frame of what we see and work with, it is critical to know your assumptions and
be as conscious as possible about the mental models you use.

Our research team at Drishti - Centre for Integral Action looked carefully at the
assumptions we hold about evaluation and monitoring, and present here some of the key
assumptions that the Integral M&E approach surfaced and examined. For other
practitioners using this as a guide, we recommend holding some dialogues in your
organization to similarly surface and examine assumptions.

In the course of our research, we found two assumptions that seemed particularly salient
for an Integral M&E. The CIDA Evaluation Guide (2004) quotes the Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) Working Party on Aid Evaluation in its description of an
evaluation as being, “The systematic and objective assessment of an on–going or
completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results.” Two
assumptions can arise from this.

First, often with the word “objective” an assumption arises that if our assessment must be
objective, therefore, we cannot measure subjective changes. In actual fact, professionals
who work with subjectivity, such as therapists and developmental psychologists, do rely
on objective assessments of their clients interior subjective experience. Some examples of
this include developmental measurement tools, such as “Subject-Object Interview”
(Kegan) and “Sentence Completion Test” (Cook-Greuter), or other similar intake
assessments. While some of these rely on dialogue with the client, the therapist is often
using objective methods to assess subjectivity.

Second, an assumption may arise that because we seek a “systematic and objective
assessment”, therefore our monitoring and evaluation approach cannot include subjective
methods. However, mixed methods research explains that often incredibly important data
does indeed come from subjective methodologies, such as reflective processes, mindful
inquiry, and phenomenology.

5
Examining this assumption within the spectrum of previous and current approaches to
monitoring and evaluation (see part one), we can perhaps find a way to include this
assumption, but also learn from its limitations. Often more conventional evaluation
approaches are rigorously objective in terms of using scientific and quantitative
methodologies to extract what worked and what did not from a development project. The
benefits of this is that the data collected is verifiable, scientifically grounded, and
rigorous. However, often an objective approach to evaluation focuses so much on
quantitative data-collection, that the method itself occludes the actual inner workings of
how and why a project did indeed work—that is, numbers and percentages may disclose
what worked, but may explain very little as to how and why a project worked.

The pendulum often swings to an opposite extreme with participatory evaluation

approaches, which claim that evaluation should be carried out qualitatively; objectivity is
heavily critiqued for more exclusively subjective approaches (such as storytelling). The
benefits of this can include more qualitative, “thick” descriptions as to why and how a
project worked, capturing some of the interior outcomes the project had on people and
communities. However, too often this occurs at the expense of actual numbers and
percentages, when this quantitative data is vitally important for the accountability of the
project.

Here we come across another assumption: namely, that one must chose between either
objective or subjective/intersubjective evaluative approaches. This assumption is
depicted in figure 12 and is well represented in figure 6, in Part One, which juxtaposes
conventional versus participatory approaches to M&E.

Fortunately, the literature is rich with mixed methods approaches to research, which have
been transferred to integrative evaluation frameworks that include both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies.

The nuance that we would like to emphasize in this an Integral approach is that we need
not only use qualitative methods to measure interior changes (such as shifts in worldview
and culture) and then reserve the quantitative methods for measuring exterior changes
(such as percentage of women present at community meetings). Rather, we can indeed
use objective, quantitative tools (drawing on third-person perspectives) to measure shifts
in interior dimensions of the project, such as changes in social awareness, values, social
discourse, and gender perspectives. Similarly, we actually know very little about the
quality of, for example, women’s participation at meeting unless we fold in subjective
and intersubjective methodologies (drawing on first- and second-person perspectives)
into the evaluation framework. See figure 13.

6
Figure  12:  Surfacing  and  examining  the  assumptions  that  objective  assessment  
cannot  measure  subjective  changes,  and  that  either  conventional  or  participatory  
approaches  to  M&E  must  be  used.  

Conventional   Participatory  M&E  

M&E   (qualitative,  
(quantitative,   subjective  and  
objective  methods   inter-­‐subjective  
focused  on  largely   methods  focused  
objective  changes.   on  largely  
objective  changes.  

7
 The assumption guiding
this framework is that, by
including these three
domains of reality, and
drawing upon as many
forms of research inquiry
as possible, a more
Personal (consciousness)
complete and balanced
(UL)
assessment of the project
zone 1:
is found.
experiential inquiry
zone 2:
developmental inquiry

Interpersonal (culture) Practical (context)

(LL) (UR/LR)
zone 3: zone 6:
interpretive inquiry empirical inquiry
zone 4: zone 8:
ethno-methodological inquiry systems inquiry

Figure 13: Drawing on Integral Research to engage three domains of change using
both objective and subjective forms of inquiry. This figure explains that M&E can assess
three domains of change, personal, interpersonal and practical, using both objective and
subjective assessment methodologies. Zone 1 and zone 3 primarily use first-person
perspectives (subjectivity) to disclose information about the personal domain and cultural
domain, respectively; whereas zone 2 and 4 primarily use third-person perspectives
(objectivity) to disclose information about the personal and cultural domains. Mostly third-
person perspectives are used to assess changes in the practical domain (that is, the context
itself), by drawing upon empirical assessment and systems inquiry.

Step  Two:  Working  with  Guiding  Principles  

Another key part of an M&E framework is identifying what principles underpin and
guide the subsequent engagement with evaluation. Identifying principles helps to create a
dynamic and responsive container for the M&E process itself. These principles answer
meta-questions such as, “Why evaluate? Evaluation for whom? How can evaluation
occur in a complex, ever-changing context? How can our evaluation process include our
own personal, organizational, and contextual changes?”

8
Below, six principles are offered for an integral M&E approach. Practitioners developing
their own framework can revise these as needed.

1) Evaluation is learning- and utilization-focused. Evaluation is carried out in

service of those engaging in the work, not for a funder per se, but rather for the
organization’s own learning process which in turn enacts more effective action in
the world.

2) Evaluation is dynamic and developmental. The evaluation process dynamically

responds to an evolving context, culture and consciousness. Outcomes are not
fixed and static, but shift and change as the context requires different engagement,
as the organizational culture shifts itself to include or prioritize new aspects, and
as learning occurs in the practitioners involved in the projects.

3) The evaluation process and framework is sufficiently complex so to respond

to a complex world. The process and framework does not rely on single methods
but mixes methods so to fully disclose and illuminate where and how change
occurred in a project.

4) The evaluation process and framework needs to engage interior and exterior
domains of change and their associated methodologies. The nature of social
change work is that change occurs in ways that are visible, tangible, and exterior
as well as changes that are invisible, intangible and interior. Both are not only
critical for a complete social change initiative, but also important to track and
measure. All evaluation frameworks include the exterior changes and quantitative
measurement tools; some evaluative frameworks include qualitative and
quantitative. Even so, among these often the truly subjective aspects of change are
missed without drawing on the specific methods to measure that quality of
change. This evaluation process and framework uses an integral research
approach that includes six methodological families that look at particular aspects
of reality with methods and validity claims for that particular aspect, see figure 13
above.

5) Evaluation is both internal and external. Evaluation includes an internal view

to the functioning of one’s own organization as well as an external view towards
projects. This internal-external view enables the emergence of a learning
organization that seeks to examine and learn about its own functioning, and
understanding that this internal functioning influences and contributes to its
external engagements. As a result, practitioners in the organization practice with
creativity, critical subjectivity, innovation, and self-reflection.

6) Evaluation is multi-scaled. It occurs at the scale of the individual practitioner,

the project or intervention, and the organization. It also occurs at the scale of
larger social movements, in terms of how we are doing as social change agents,
and on an evolutionary scale, in terms of how we are doing as a species. The latter
two scales—social movements and species evolution—are less included in reports
to donors, yet should nevertheless be considered and contemplated in
international development.

9
Step  Three:  Identifying  Domains  of  Change  

The next step of an integral M&E process is to consider what domains of change are
important in one’s project. Drawing on the methodology Most Significant Change (MSC)
(Davies and Dart, 2005), “Domains are broad and often fuzzy categories of possible
[social change] stories.” While our approach differs from MSC in that it does not
exclusively draw on stories as ways to measure change, we concur that identifying
domains of change in which we seek to understand and assess change is of vital
importance. Davies and Dart (2005) describe in their guidebook how participants
involved in MSC were asked to look for significant changes in four domains: 1) changes
in the quality of people’s lives, 2) changes in the nature of people’s participation in
development activities, 3) changes in the sustainability of people’s organisations and
activities, 4) any other changes (p. 17).

In our approach, we take perhaps a less-detailed look, stepping further back to

contemplate four irreducible domains of reality that Wilber (1995) refers to as quadrants.
These have been described throughout Part One and Two, and include personal change
(such as self-awareness, values and consciousness), behavioral change (such as land use
practices, livelihood practices, resource use), cultural change (such as social discourse,
worldview, and customs), and systems change (such as social institutions, means of
communication and decision-making, and ecosystem viability). The four quadrants of the
Integral Theory have been applied in the field of sustainability and development (Brown,
2004; Hochachka, 2005; and Van Schaik, 2004), and here we investigate their use in
M&E.

We see that each of these four domains are always to some extent involved in giving rise
to changes in capacity development for sustainability. Moreover, these quadrants are
useful in a diversity of contexts because they are not prescriptive. These four quadrants
are broad and empty categories,
Soft capacities Hard capacities
such that each practitioner or
project team will draw out Individual, interior (self, Individual, exterior
details particular to their awareness) (behaviors, skills)
unique context. We see this Examples: Examples:
to be important, since often - Empowerment - Particular practices and
an M&E framework will - Personal leadership technical skills
Individual

- Moral span - Tasks that contribute to

implicitly include and - Values organizational
impose what its authors see - Emotional intelligence performance.
to be most critical, rather
than to provide space for Collective, interior (culture, Collective, exterior
worldview) (systems)
this content to come from Examples: Examples:
those who are doing the - Interpersonal capacity - organizational systemic
evaluation. These four - Dialogue and listening capacity, such as
Collective

general domains of change, capacities communication and

that are essentially empty of
content, help practitioners to
hone in on what is most
critical to their particular
- Social discourse and financial systems
social methodologies -
Figure 12: Identifying domains of change, using quadrants of the
Integral Approach to capacity development.

10
projects and contexts.

Step  Four:  Identifying  Outcomes  

The fourth step in Integral M&E is to identify outcomes for which monitoring and
evaluation is directed. This can be done is any manner of ways depending on the project
context and the scale at which M&E is oriented (such as, staff dialogues at a practitioner
scale, project visioning sessions at the project scale, or strategic planning at the
organizational scale).

In our research, we used action research with the One Sky project team and with ACCA’s
personnel, project coordinators, and the directors (see Part One for research details), to
identify the following outcomes for Integral Capacity Development. Some of these
outcomes came from the Baseline Assessment carried out by One Sky’s project team in
June 2007; some outcomes were identified during focus groups and key informant
interviews as salient and important to also include by ACCA practitioners. The Drishti
researchers also emphasized certain outcomes, using participant-observation and mindful
inquiry, particularly those that focused on the Left-hand quadrants that are more difficult
to assess and monitor. We analyzed the interviews and focus groups findings into seven
outcomes (figure 14), and later ensured that these seven outcomes covered and included
all quadrants (figure 15).

Figure 14: Outcomes identified through focus groups and key-informant interviews for
what is currently most important for integral capacity development in ACCA for its work
in rainforest conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

   
Improve  internal  organizational  dynamics,  internal  communication,  and   Identified  by  ACCA  
1  
reflective  processes  within  ACCA.  
 
   
Engender  great  trust  and  improve  ACCA’s  image  with  communities  and  the   Identified  by  ACCA  
2  
public.  
 
   
Better  understanding  worldviews  and  engaging  interior  changes  (such  as   Identified  by  ACCA  
3   awareness,  attitudes,  empowerment,  sense  of  ownership,  knowledge,   and  One  Sky  
values,  and  motivation).  
 
 
Strengthen  participation  with  communities  and  other  actors,  learning  new   Identified  by  ACCA  
4  
social  methodologies.   and  One  Sky  
 
   
Develop  gender  awareness,  and  build  capacity  for  Gender  Mainstreaming   Identified  by  One  Sky  
5   across  the  organization  and  in  programming  with  communities  and  the  
public.    
 

11
 Identified  by  One  Sky  
Improve  capacity  for  networking  with  other  organizations  (locally,  
6  
regionally,  internationally).  

Identified  by  One  Sky  

7   Improve  capacity  for  strategic  planning  

Figure 15: Mapping outcomes to the four-quadrant domains of change of the Integral
Approach to capacity development. While this is very general, mapping the outcomes per
quadrant enabled our research team to feed back and reflect these findings to One Sky and
ACCA, and also to reveal any potential gaps in the outcomes sought. Through doing this,
ACCA verified that indeed the LL quadrant was the weaker point in the organization, with
attention needed in the UL as well, and One Sky clarified that improved technical capacity
with strategic planning and networking were vital for ENGOs today.

Soft capacities Hard capacities

Individual, interior (self, awareness) Individual, exterior (behaviors, skills)

- Better  understanding  worldviews  and   - Improve  capacity  for  strategic  planning  
engaging  interior  changes  (such  as  
awareness,  attitudes,  empowerment,  
sense  of  ownership,  knowledge,  values,  
Individual

and  motivation).  
- Engender  great  trust  and  improve  ACCA’s  
image  with  communities  and  the  public.  

Collective, interior (culture, worldview) Collective, exterior (systems)

- Improve  internal  organizational  dynamics,   - Improve  capacity  for  networking  with  
internal  communication,  and  reflective   other  organizations  (locally,  regionally,  
processes  within  ACCA.   internationally).
- Strengthen  participation  with  
communities  and  other  actors,  learning  
new  social  methodologies.  
Collective

- Develop  gender  awareness,  and  build  

capacity  for  Gender  Mainstreaming  
across  the  organization  and  in  
programming  with  communities  and  the  
public.    

12
Step  Five:  Developing  Criteria  and  Indicators    

During the focus groups, we developed criteria and indicators for each of the outcomes
sought by ACCA. Figure 8 in Part Two offers more details.

How to develop C&Is:

There are many processes for how to develop indicators, and we encourage you to find
the way that works best for your organization. Many guidelines exist for what good
indicators are. While this list below is not comprehensive, and we encourage you to add
and refine it, some suggestions are offered here. Indicators should:

 Be relevant to the project—an indicator must fit the purpose you have it for,
such as to help measure progress toward a goal, raise awareness about a critical
issue, or help local decision-making regarding natural resource use, etc.
 Be easily understandable to everyone interested in your project.
 Provide reliable information—people must trust the information that an
indicator provides.
 Be measurable, using mixed-methods data collection.
 Look at individual and collective, interior and exterior domains—indicators
should be selected to gather information about ecological, economic, social,
behavioural, and psychological aspects of your project area (in the case of our
project, Integral capacity development for sustainable development).

Some tips for developing C&Is are:

- Practice open-mindedness, noticing if and where old assumptions limit creative

thinking.
- Recall that “measurable” need not conflated with “objective,” and rather both exterior
and interior domains of change can be measured by objective and subjective methods.
- Keep in mind that M&E is your process of learning and refining activities to better
arrive at outcomes, as well as useful for accountability to donors and the public.
- Keep attuned to the developmental aspect of M&E, seeing that these are iterations
and flows in a larger unfolding.
- Stay dynamic, and do not be afraid to shift gears in a project if the M&E findings
suggest you should.

Working with C&Is:

Once C&Is are developed for a particular set of outcomes, your project team should work
with those C&Is. Some approaches are to sort them into what you expect to see, what you
hope to see, what you would love to see. Other approaches suggest a six-step process for
working with them, including defining the indicator’s purpose, identifying the indicator,
selecting indicators for implementation, setting targets for those indicators, collecting
data on those indicators, and evaluating the indicator’s usefulness.i In any case, it may
take some time and effort to work with the C&Is you chose, to ensure they are the best
indicators for assessing your outcomes.

13
Step  Six:  Selecting  Lines  of  Inquiry  and  Methodologies  

Scholar-practitioners working in global issues today are faced with a vast and complex
terrain. This is particularly the case for M&E. In order to know, traverse, and monitor and
evaluate that terrain well, one is called to search for the best maps available to do so. In a
research context, a good map attempting to navigate a complex terrain orients the
research with multiple lines of inquiry. These lines of inquiry disclose to one’s awareness
aspects of the terrain that may have otherwise been missed. By using a more nuanced,
comprehensive map, the more intimately, fully, deeply, and caringly one can know and
enact the terrain.

If we intend to engage and assess changes in personal, behavioral, cultural and systemic
domains, we are certainly faced with a very complex terrain. Integral Research (or
Integral Methodological Pluralism, IMP) provides a map to identify and integrate these
different lines of inquiry in relationship to the research topic (see figures 6 and 7).
Integral Research explains how, in each quadrant, one can take an inside or outside view
of that domain of phenomena. This discloses eight methodological families or zones.
These eight zones are lines of inquiry, akin to streams of human thought, through which
different questions have been asked from different perspectives over time, thus disclosing
unique views of the research phenomena in question. For a practitioner intending to
evaluate complex projects, engaging these lines of inquiry takes one’s awareness along
tried-and-true methodological conduits in the attempt to understand the many different
facets of change occurring in one’s project.

These eight methodologies families include: Zone 1 phenomenology, Zone 2

structuralism, Zone 3 hermeneutics, Zone 4 ethnomethodology, Zone 5 autopoiesis, Zone
6 empiricism, Zone 7 social autopoiesis and Zone 8 systems theory. The strength of IMP
is that it illuminates and guides an engagement with 1st-person, 2nd-person and 3rd-person
perspectives of research phenomena from the individual and collective, interior and
exterior domains of reality. Not only does this help a researcher gain a fuller
understanding of the research topic, but this also helps to deal with a lot of confusion
between research disciplines. For example, with Integral Research, it becomes clear that
if a practitioner wants to assess personal changes in the interior of the individual (such as
shifts in self-concept, awareness, and values), the lines of inquiry to most effectively
disclose those changes would be from zone 2 (structuralism) and likely not zone 6
(empiricism). These confusions between disciplines occur all the time, and will continue
to occur without some way of discerning what view is begin taken, how, and thus
disclosing and enacting what aspect of phenomena.

In figure 16, the zones and their unique line of inquiry are described, as well as what this
line of inquiry discloses/enacts and what methodological family it comes from. Some
suggestions for methodologies are also offered. In Part TWo, these methodologies are
described in more detail. In Appendix 1, some sample instruments are offered for
practitioners to use in the field. These methodologies are often not unusual or unknown to
social change agents or development practitioners. Rather, what is perhaps unique is their
combined use for assessing change in these four domains.

14
Figure 16: Lines of inquiry and some sample methodologies.

UL personal UR behavior

Zone 1: reflective, experiential inquiry. Zone 6: empirical inquiry.

Description: interior felt-sense, how one feels (about oneself,
org, project, issue),
Method Family: phenomenology
Methodologies:
o personal ecology sheet
o self-reflection (can use this tool to guide the process,
can be an ongoing cascading reflection-stream, and/or
can be accessed through journaling).
Zone 2: developmental inquiry.
Description: interior personal change, developmental stages,
changes in motivation, attitudes, and values.
Method Family: structuralism
Methodologies:
o developmental assessment (includes pre/post
interviews that are carried out one-on-one with a
sample of the population and the interviewer is
trained to ask the same questions that hone in on
indicators for motivational, attitudinal, and values
changes; see below.)
Description: quantitative measurement of seen changes
in behaviors, for example: shifts in land-use practices,
up-take of conservation practices in the household,
behavioral change in gender relations.
Method Family: empiricism
Methodologies:
o measuring, ranking, and quantitative analysis
(pre/during/post measurement that ranks
certain behaviors from 1-10 and can
compare/contrast to later assessment, after
which time that data can be analyzed using
quantitative methods to create graphs and
figures of what percentage of behaviors
changed through the lifetime of the project.)

LL culture LR systems
Zone 3: interpretive inquiry. Zone 8: systems inquiry.
Description: culture and meanings held by the group or Description: quantitative measurement of seen changes
community; for example, how do people generally feel and in social, economic, political systems in which the
what do they know about “conservation”, what does work is carried out.
“conservation concession” mean to them? Method Family: systems analysis
Method Family: hermeneutics Methodologies:
Methodologies: o systems-analysis tool.
o focus group (using a guided method, shared below, as
a pre/during/post method of “taking the pulse” of the
group—where motivation lies, what is working what
is not, how can the project shift and flow.

Zone 4: ethno-methodological inquiry

Description: changes in social discourse, implicit
“background” social norms, and shared worldview.
Method Family: ethno-methodology
Methodologies:
o participant-observation (using a tool with focus
questions on specific domains of change)

15
Step  Seven:  Carrying-­‐out  implementation  and  action-­‐reflection  

Now, move into implementation. Try out your Integral M&E Framework in your project.
Circle back to reflect on what worked and why, integrating lessons learned.

Conclusion    

In sustainable development, practitioners are surely in the business of change. Usually

that is thought of as systemic change, such as changes in institutions, land use practices,
and governance processes. However, most field practitioners also recognize that to
support any such changes, also requires changes in mindsets, values, and consciousness.
That is, why would someone change their land use practices, if they did not
simultaneously also value the land and ecosystem differently? Or, for another example,
why would a new institution and governance process, such as a collaborative
management of the forest ecosystem, take hold without the corresponding cultural buy-in
and awareness that that manner of working is important?

With this in mind, one can see how when we engage in capacity building, it is never a
simple “technical transfer;” rather it is a complex and intricate array of capacity building
processes involving various dimensions of change. The more human dimensions of
change are often referred to as “soft” capacities, with the technical capacities referred to
as “hard” capacities. Different practitioners and organizations will foreground these
capacities in lesser or greater degrees, some focusing more explicitly on the technological
side and others increasingly on the human side. It is essentially quite straight forward to
measure quantitative change, but the qualitative, interior changes are more difficult to
account for.

As the human dimensions of capacity building are more explicitly and intentionally
engaged, various critical questions arise for evaluation and monitoring, such as:

• When do we apply what evaluative methodology?

• How can we evaluate for long-term, interior impacts?
• How can we skilfully and rigorously evaluate for qualitative and interior changes?
• How can we assess and evaluate how the social norms and cultural traditions have
changed toward more sustainable outcomes?
• How can we evaluate the interior changes that are sought in a project, such as
changes in awareness, values, self-identity, and consciousness?

In this research project, researchers with Drishti - Centre for Integral Action, in
collaboration with One Sky and ACCA, combine action research and Integral Research in
a case study in Peru, to field test the array of methods that will increasingly become
important as an Integral Approach is used in capacity building and evaluation.
In this Part One, we reviewed and discussed the landscape of capacity development and
monitoring and evaluation today, and set the stage for what might become an Integral
Monitoring and Evaluation in today’s ever-increasingly complex field of sustainable
development. In Part Two, we shared the intricacies of our integral action research
project in Peru with our two project partners. In Part Three, we distil a “version one”
Integral Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, with some key ideas to be considered as
well as likely many gaps yet to be addressed. In any case, with this project we contribute
to this discussion of how practitioners in sustainable development can bring forth
comprehensive change and measure it.

At the close of this research project, we feel optimistic that while it was a small project, it
might be a catalyzing one for innovations in M&E in development. In other research we
have analyzed and critiqued the field of development for its often piecemeal approach to
an obviously complex and profound endeavor of comprehensive global change. We have
pointed out that the methodologies and disciplines exist in this field and can be integrated
into a more complete, whole, and integral approach to engaging change. The research
outcomes offer development practitioners and organizations a framework for how to
rigorously and inclusively monitor and evaluate “all quadrant” change (behaviours,
systems, culture, and self), including how to develop C&Is and identify methodologies
for data collection.

Simply put: without some type of Integral M&E—be it the framework we’ve designed
through this project or another similar framework that is able to assess and measure
subjective and objective changes—development organizations cannot be expected to
work toward all-quadrant changes. This projects’ findings on how to monitor and
evaluate integral capacity development, helps to encourage other organizations to take on
a more comprehensive, integral approach.

We have already seen the interest in our research, both from the partner organizations,
other community development and environmental NGOs, and even in some CIDA
representatives who visited the ACCA-Cusco office, sufficient to suggest that this is an
important dialogue to initiate and continue in today’s development context. We hope you
will join us in developing it further.

17
Appendix  One:  Sample  Instruments  for  Integrating  
Methodologies  of  Integral  M&E  

We include here five sample instruments: two self-reflection tools, one developmental
assessment of worldviews, one for conducting focus groups, and one for assessing social
development. These sample instruments particularly provide some guidelines and format
for how to assess the more difficult-to-measure interior dimensions of individuals and
groups. Other qualitative methods, such as participant-observation and storytelling, are
documented elsewhere, and other quantitative methods, such as empirical and systemic
inquiry, are well-known already in the field.

1. Personal well-being sheet

2. Reflection
3. Focus group
4. Assessing social development
5. Developmental assessment

18
Personal
 Well
 Being
 Questionnaire
Upper Left
Do you derive meaning from your work?
Do you take time to self reflect about your life
and purpose?
Do you engage in spiritual, religious or
contemplative practices?
Do you set personal goals and intentions?
How motivated do you feel these days?
How would you rate your emotional health?
Do you take time to appreciate art, music or
culture?
On a daily basis how frantic or under control do
you feel?
Do you feel a personal sense of leadership?
Lower Left
How would you rate your personal relationships
with your family right now?
How satisfied are you with your love life?
If you have children do you have a quality
relationship with them?
Do you have friends and how do you feel about
your friendships?
How strong is your sense of community? Do
you belong to a group?
How strongly do you feel a sense of
involvement with your organization?.
Do you participate in non-work related cultural
activities with your organization?.
Do you participate in cultural activities? Or
group sports?
How is your social life?
Upper Right
Are you able to effectively manage your time?
Are you getting enough exercise? How is your
physical health?
Are you eating properly or intentionally (i.e.
aware of your eating decisions)
Are you getting enough sleep?
Are your values reflected in personal choices that
you make? How? (Do you act in relation to your
values, recycle, make ethical purchases, etc)
Do you have personal space and time in your life?
Are you getting enough time to simply relax?
Are you learning new things and educating
yourself (skills training)
Lower Right
Do you feel a sense of personal security in terms
of where you live?
How do you feel about your home and
neighbourhood?
Do you have an adequate transportation system?
Do you have an adequate communication system?
Are you able to plan and manage your finances
adequately?
Are you keeping up with the news and what is
going on in the world?
Do you feel involved politically?
Reflection
 Journal
 
 

Definition:
Self-reflection techniques can access my own interior experience and understanding of the
project and its outcomes. This includes practicing mindful inquiry or presencing. This can also
include perspective-taking practice, journaling, meditative inquiry, and intention-setting.

Instructions:
Prior to, after, and/or during project activities, reflect on what is arising in your own
experience. This helps to surface assumptions and biases. Then, journal or note your findings.

Name:
Date:
Place:
Activities/Participants:

Journal Notes:
Focus  groups  

Focus groups are an effective data-collection method to “take the pulse” of the group—where
motivation lies, what is working what is not, how can the project shift and flow—as well as to
discuss interpretations and meanings of key conservation concepts, such as concession and
collaborative management. It too can be used pre/during/post project to assess changes over
time.

This provides some considerations for how to hold and analyze a focus group, as well as
provides space for reflections and thoughts from key informant interviews and other
interpretative data gathered from individuals and groups.

Holding a Focus Group

- Set time and place for focus group
- Identify key theme to be explored
- Develop a series of questions carefully, considering the participants culture and
understanding, as well as what important aspect of the topic need to be included.
- Select focus groups on whatever criteria will most enable an open, frank dialogue so to
derive useful and relevant interpretations on the subject.
- Hold a reflective space during focus groups that provide new questions and comments to
emerge naturally.
- Considering how do people make meaning and sense of what is occurring; be attentive to
the perspectives that participants hold such that they interpret their reality as they do.
- Record discussions, and transcribe if possible.

Focus Group Analysis

- Going through the discussions, noting and coding the key themes.
- In a spreadsheet, count which themes were mentioned the most.
- In another page of that spreadsheet, note down key comments that are salient to your M&E
process (writing the quote directly as this will become useful anecdotal data).

Notes:

21
Assessing  Social  Development  (Social  Discourse)    

This tool assists in assessing the social center of gravity in an organization or community by
participants of a focus group taking an objective perspective of the organization’s ability to
hold perspectives. See theoretical details on this in Part Two. Below the steps are outlined:

- Using the diagram above, explain how the triangle diagrams depict five ways to hold
different perspectives. Perspective #1 (triangle 1) (in this case , this was ACCA) and
perspective #2 (triangle 2) (in this case, this was the community.)
- You can say that these come from different stages of social discourse that tend to follow
the average level of consciousness in the members of the group. Or you can present these
as horizontal types.
- From left to right, the altitude is described by a sample quote that might issue from that
stage:
o magic worldview (“my agenda/organization is the only one that counts”),
o mythic worldview (“our organization has the right way of doing things, but we’ll
give hand-outs to the community”);
o rational worldview (“we can consider and appreciate the community has its own
agenda, and we’ll engage in participation, but it is more consultation, since we really
don’t give up much of our agenda, being as it is based on true expertise”);
o pluralistic worldview (“we so consider and appreciate the community’s agenda that
we’ll give up our own; in fact, that itself becomes our agenda which is often
implicitly imposed on the community”);
o integral worldview (“we see that both the organization and the community have an
agenda/perspective that is valid and that the shared terrain (smallest overlapping
triangle) does not have to be the lowest common denominator, rather a wider, deeper
perspective co-arises that neither individual entity can see on its own.”)
- You can explain that Drishti researchers and One Sky partners created the five diagrams
tool for assessing social discourse in our work in Peru. It is based on our collective field
experience, knowledge of social center of gravity (see Wilber, 2002, Excerpt D), as well as
roughly aligned with a theory of types of participation. The typologies are listed here, with
their links to our triangle model: passive participation (amber); participation in information
giving (early orange); participation by consultation (orange); participation for material
incentives (orange); functional participation (mature orange); interaction participation
(green); self-mobilization (mature green) (Source: Pretty (1994) adapted from Adnan et al
(1992)).

22
- Facilitate the discussion that following, pulling out interesting ideas, encouraging open-
mindedness, and anchoring discussion points in the relevant issues in the group or
organization.
- After the discussion is complete, note down some key points you heard, going over the
recording if you need to.

23
Developmental  Assessment  

This is based on research that assesses shifts in worldviews using sentence analysis of group
processes. The assessment technique was developed by Jordan (1998) and used in field
research by Hochachka (2005, 2008).

Developmental assessment should be carried out pre/during/post project via interviews that are
carried out one-on-one with a sample of the population. The interviewer is trained to ask the
same questions that hone in on indicators for motivational, attitudinal, and values changes. We
highly recommend that practitioners receive some training in stages of psychological
development prior to using this tool (such as, Kegan, Cook-Greuter, among others), at all times
practice humility, and continually test your assumptions. Here are some steps in using this tool:

 First, study six developmental stages of worldviews. Keep in mind these are deep
structures of consciousness that will present themselves uniquely and diversely
across cultures, as surface structures. If possible, read up on the developmental
psychologists who have done primary research in this area.

 Second, begin to notice where and how these deep structures, or patterns of meaning-
making, show up in your community or project, using the worksheet below.

 Third, in interviews with key informants and/or in participant-observation

methodology, begin to test your assumptions for “where people might be coming
from.” If you think you know an individual’s worldview, test your assumptions by
asking a question that would make sense to that worldview. Also ask a question that
would make sense to the stage before and after where you think they might be
coming from. If your intuition is correct, these statements should be “hot” and “cold”
buttons for that stage, respectively, and as such becomes a way you can be more
accurate for understanding worldviews.

 Fourth, design a set of questions you could use pre/during/post project to assess
changes in developmental stage or worldview.

Assessing  General  Worldview  

Magic, early egocentric:

(began 50,000 years ago)
- Worldview of the tribe or group, animistic and magical.
- An understanding that everything is interconnected, but because they were never
separated. That is, the self is totally embedded within the social and environmental
context. In this sense, for example, the clouds are not just moving across the sky, they
are following you. The tribal beliefs are paramount and to not break from this strong
tribal bond is most important.

24
Magic-mythic, egocentric to ethnocentric:
(began 10,000 years ago)
- Might makes right.
- Little capacity to take a perspective of the other person.
- Has difficulty to think in longer timelines into the future and of consequences from
current actions. Therefore lives in the moment (experiences liberty, creativity, also
often without evident social morals and consideration for others).

Mythic, traditional, ethnocentric

(began 5,000 years ago)
- Traditional worldview, mythical and often absolutistic
- There is one Truth, the world is seen in black and white, opposites.
- There is a focus on ‘my group’, and one wants to be involved in this group more than
anything; that is, a sense of group belonging is critical for well-being.
- Helps to control the impulsivity of the previous stage with rules, social norms, taboos,
and desire to be part of the group.
- One can see the fundamentalism from this stage, from the Us/Them way that meaning
is made (i.e. “my” God is the true God, “my” country is the true country, “my” people
are the best people, without a doubt).
- In development this is seen as assistance, pure charity to “the poor,” a linear flow from
“us” to “them,” of huge benefit in situations of acute need and humanitarian crisis.

Rational, modern, early world-centric

(Began 500 years ago with the science of the Enlightenment and other scientific advances
in other parts of the world).
- Scientific, instrumental, quantitative paradigm.
- Objective knowledge is the most trustworthy since it can be tested, and truth can be
discovered (one need not indulge in religion).
- The focus moves from “my” group of the previous stage to universal ethics, since more
perspectives can be held. While from this worldview, one can hold his or her own
perspective as well as recognize that other perspectives exist, there is still a preference
for one’s own perspective. Usually because it is seen as having more expertise or
scientific rigor.
- The protection of human rights began at this stage.
- In development this is seen with the use of instrumental knowledge and science, an
over-reliance on quantitative ways of knowing, practitioners believe themselves to be
the experts in a one-way relationship with beneficiaries, they come to extract
information and bestow scientific or economic insights on beneficiaries as objects of
development (not subjects co-creating their own future).

Pluralistic, participatory, world-centric

(Began 150 years ago or less, was more fully established in the 1960s)
- This worldview can take multiple perspectives, values all cultures, and extends ethics
and moral care to all peoples and species.

25
 - With the ability to take multiple perspectives comes an impetus to promote equality for
all, which arose as the civil rights movements, human rights movements, feminism,
other social movements and environmental movements.
- This stage is more compassionate and idealistic, and yet carries an extreme relativism I
which all beliefs and perspectives are considered relative and equally true. This can
become highly ironic, since this stage implicitly holds that its own perspective is more
true than others, in what has been referred to as a “pejorative contradiction.”
- In development, this is seen in participatory and alternative approaches to development,
where valid knowledge is found in community-based wisdom, experience, and
subjective ways of knowing, not just science. The practitioners accompany the
community in a process of shared learning.

Integral, world-centric to kosmos-centric

- This stage is very recent and is a worldview that can recognize and appreciate all the
previous worldviews, seeing their positive contributions and their limitations.
- The process of evolution is recognized and appreciated, in which each worldview is a
necessary part of the whole awareness of individuals and the group.
- This stage can see and value all perspectives, yet also can evaluate, rank, and critique if
necessary, with the basic moral intuition, or acting on behalf of “the most depth for the
most span.”
- In development this is seen with approaches that see the efforts and challenges of all
approaches and includes some of all approaches, to be comprehensive and connected to
the reality. Uses the methods that come from all previous stages (contemplation,
science, participation). Recognizes the values and truths of each stage is needed to
work with complexity of global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss,
poverty, and global illnesses.

Stage / Where have you witnessed this, particularly in Notes on potential

Worldview your project area? Describe these surface hot and cold
(deep structures buttons
structure)

Magic, early
egocentric

Magic-
mythic,
egocentric to
ethnocentric

26
 Mythic,
traditional,
ethnocentric

Rational,
modern,
early world-
centric

Pluralistic,
participatory,
world-centric

Integral,
world-centric
to kosmos-
centric

Interview  Guidelines  

- The format must be very open-ended, since the object of the study is the respondent’s own
structure of meaning-making about development.
- The main task of the interviewer is to get the respondent to in the form and in the terms
that is natural for him/her.
- The questions should be as vague as possible, inviting the respondent to supply the issues,
concepts and arguments that are native to his/her own mental world.
- The interviewer must then proceed to pick up salient statements, concepts, and
interpretations, and probe for the meaning-making system that produced them.

Jordan (1998) describes Dana Ward’s study of constructions of the meaning of "democracy"
and reports her description of the interview technique:

27
The material was collected over the course of six- to ten-hour interviews with each
subject. [… ] The structure of the interviews was such that questions went from the
abstract to the concrete in each area of concern. For example, sections on democracy,
freedom, equality, government, political parties, nationality, and the like all began by
asking a question on the order of "What is your understanding of the term . . ."
democracy, freedom and so forth. Then in each area the questions became more and
more specific, focusing, for example, on specific leaders rather than "leaders and
people." In addition, specific questions designed to draw out the structure of thought
were attached to each section. The central questions here asked subjects to negate the
concept in question (e.g., "What would you consider to be undemocratic?") or to adjust
their personal perspectives by putting themselves in the place of a political leader or
racial minority, or in a different political context (e.g., "What would your life have been
like if you had been black," or ". . . if you had grown up in the Third World?"). The
main question, however, was simply "Why do you believe that?" asked repeatedly,
producing a chain of justifications revealing the subject’s reasoning about particular
issues. (Ward, 1988, p. 69)

28
Further  Nuance  with  Assessing  Self-­‐Development  

Below are the scoring dimensions presented by Jordan (1998) in his outline for a research
strategy on “Constructions of "development" in local Third World communities.” This was
published as: Occasional Papers (1998:6, Kulturgeografiska Institutionen, Handelshögskolan,
Göteborgs Universitet), yet Jordan explained (2007, personal communication) that it had not
yet been field-tested and remains as a theoretical outline for a research strategy.

This work is very relevant and interesting in our work with how to assess stages of meaning-
making and worldviews, such that we have included the scoring dimensions here. However
Drishti has not field-tested this. We see, however, that this is a strong design and wish to share
it more widely in the context of Integral M&E as a way to stimulate its use in the field. While
Jordan developed this strategy primarily for analyzing the structure of reasoning about
development, we can apply this to other reasoning as well. Here, we provide direct quotes from
Jordan’s article, as well as worksheets for others for using this as a heuristic tool.

SCORING DIMENSIONS

Jordan (1998) identified five dimensions that might prove relevant to an empirical analysis of
the structure of reasoning about development. The five dimensions are:

A. Concrete/abstract conceptualization

B. Reasoning about causality

C. Ingroup–outgroup (identity)

D. Coordination of perspectives

E. Agency

This framework is derived from cognitive-developmental theory, especially from the work of
Kegan, Rosenberg, Habermas, Schroeder and Wilber, but it is not necessary to be thoroughly
familiar with all the aspects of these theories in order to use the framework.

For each dimension I have tentatively specified four levels of increasing complexity. These
four levels correspond approximately to four of Robert Kegan’s "orders of consciousness," but
they are not derived from his framework with full theoretical stringency. The resulting 5*4
framework (five dimensions and four stages) is only meant to be a heuristic starting-point in
the analytic process. The analysis of the interviews might (hopefully) prompt a revision of the
content and number of levels, and might suggest other or different relevant dimensions.

A. Concrete/abstract conceptualization

29
This dimension reflects the often observed fact that at earlier stages of cognitive development,
reasoning tends to be closely related to concrete concepts (Selman, 1980), whereas late-stage
reasoning draws on abstract and complex notions.
Description Presence Notes on where this is seen currently in
of this the community or project.
stage
ranked
from 1-
10 (where
1 is least
present,
and 10 is
most
present)
Stage 1. No abstract development
concept. Development is regarded as
concrete things one has or doesn’t
have, e.g. food, a well, a road, a
medical centre, a school. Reasoning
about development only refers to
concrete examples in a narrative mode.
There is no notion of development as a
generalized phenomenon.

Stage 2. Development is regarded as a

state which can be described by
comparing different
regions/villages/families/persons with
each other. Visions about development
only refer to concrete experiences, not
to hypothetical visions of what might
be possible, but has not yet been seen.

Stage 3. Development is regarded as a

social process that brings change not
only to the state of the (observable)
society, but also of the internal world
of individuals, e.g. as new skills or
changed attitudes. A hypothetical
future may be imagined that goes
beyond concretely made experiences.

Stage 4. Development is seen as

something that has an infinite number
of dimensions, something that has a
different meaning to different persons
in different contexts. At this stage

30
definition of development is in itself
regarded as an interesting problem
with no definite and unequivocal
solution (thinking about thinking). The
meaning of development is interpreted
contextually and as a notion that
should be in continual reconstruction.

B. Reasoning about causality

This dimension reflects the structure of reasoning about social causality, i.e. why social events
occur or do not occur (Rosenberg, 1988). The stages represent increasing levels of cognitive
complexity, especially in terms of mentally representing how different elements of the social
system relate to each other.

Description Presence Notes on where this is seen currently in the

of this community or project.
stage
ranked
from 1-
10 (where
1 is least
present,
and 10 is
most
present)
Stage 1. No opinion about causes
of underdevelopment or
development. Pieces of
information and events remain
separate, they are not integrated
into a coherent conception of
causal relationships.

Stage 2. Development problems

are explained by a single causal
factor or actor. Causal
relationships are perceived in
terms of unidirectional cause–
effect relationships. There is no
understanding of a system with
complex interaction.

Stage 3. Causal relationships are

31
seen as bilateral relationships,
where both sides interact.

Stage 4. Development is regarded

as a complex system made up by
a multitude of circumstances and
actors, where no single factor is
the only decisive causal agent.

C. Ingroup–outgroup (identity)

This dimension refers to the scope of reasoning, especially what groups, collectives or
societies figure as important points of reference in development reasoning. The stages
represent a widening scope of attention, later stages including consideration of the society
outside the immediate lifeworld in development reasoning.
Description Presence Notes on where this is seen currently in the
of this community or project.
stage
ranked
from 1-
10 (where
1 is least
present,
and 10 is
most
present)
Stage 1. Discussions of
development only refers to
one’s own concrete daily life.
"We" is restricted to the person
to whom one has direct personal
relationships (household, kin,
neighbours). Outgroups are
regarded as irrelevant and
uninteresting.

Stage 2. Development is
regarded as a problem that is
common for the village or the
neighbourhood. "We" includes
the village, the district, or
perhaps the ethnic group one
belongs to. Outgroups are
considered, and it is recognized

32
that they must be included in
reasoning about development
options. However, the
conceptions about outgroups are
stereotypic, and mostly
negative.

Stage 3. Development is seen as

a problem for the whole region,
or the whole nation. "We"
includes the whole nation. The
images of outgroups are
relatively differentiated. Mutual
learning is regarded as fruitful.
It is recognized that there are
large individual differences
among both ingroup and
outgroup members.

Stage 4. Development is a
universal theme. "We" includes
human beings in general.
Unique individual traits are
more interesting than group
membership. Differences
between groups and regions can
be used for developing creative
solutions to problems.

D. Coordination of perspectives

This dimension concerns the cognitive ability to put oneself in the position of other people and
other roles, and to reason about how different perspectives relate to each other (Schroeder et
al., 1967). The stages represent growing abilities to take the role of others, and to integrate
different perspectives with each other.

Description Presence Notes on where this is seen currently in the

of this community or project.
stage
ranked
from 1-
10

33
Stage 1. Refers only to own
perspective. No signs of
awareness that other actors
might have a different
perspective on development
issues.

Stage 2. Some signs of

understanding that other actors
might have other perspectives
and interests, but this insight
does not result in a modification
of own perspective.

Stage 3. Insight in the

perspectives of other actors
influences own interpretations
and attitudes to some extent.
Some ability to reason about
development problems from a
"third party perspective."

Stage 4. Ability to reason about

development without being
embedded in personal interests.
The perspectives and interests
of other persons and groups can
be considered and coordinated
with the perspective of the
ingroup to generate problem
solutions that work for all
parties involved. Uses tension
between the perspectives of
different actors to come up with
creative solutions.

E. Agency

This dimension refers to reasoning about actions to further development, in particular the issue
of who is able to initiate and realize development issues. The stages represent a growing sense
of being able to intentionally influence future events and states.

Description Presence Notes on where this is seen currently in the

of this community or project.

34
 stage
ranked
from 1-
10
Stage 1. No explicit
conception of agency, life is
lived as it is from moment to
moment (embeddedness in
the concrete present). The
person reacts to what
happens, and regards own
actions as the only possible in
given circumstances. The
conditions of the environment
are regarded as given.
Oneself and others are
perceived in terms of concrete
attributes: strong/weak,
wealthy/poor, woman/man;
and in terms of what one has
or doesn’t have: arable land
area, number of children,
cattle, etc. No conception of
people having internal
resources that can be
developed. Development
means getting what one didn’t
have before. Few ideas about
goals to strive for.

Stage 2. Unilateral idea of

agency. Only powerful
persons (e.g. politicians,
foreign aid officials) can
change conditions. Change is
regarded as possible, but only
in terms of gradual
quantitative differences (more
water, more food, more
education, more cash). One’s
own possibilities to influence
development are limited.
Persons are perceived as
bearers of internal attributes,
e.g. concrete skills that might
be developed (e.g. handicraft

35
skills, business sense). Goals
are primarily conceived in
conventional terms, strongly
dependent on the norms and
values of the surrounding
culture.

Stage 3. Bilateral conception

of agency. Individuals or
groups can achieve
development by skilful work
or business activities.
Development is possible by
exploiting the possibilities
offered by the existing
system, but conceptions about
fundamentally changing the
way the society operates are
absent. The environment is
still largely seen as given.
However, by own effort, e.g.
development of skills, it is
possible to improve living
conditions. Goals are more
individualized, but still
primarily oriented towards
conventional conceptions
about the desirable life.

Stage 4. Strongly developed

ability to reason
hypothetically brings
transcendence of the
conception of a given
environment. It is possible for
individuals and collectives to
choose path, to shape one’s
destiny. Life goals can be
defined in very different
ways, depending on
individual preferences. An
important aspect of
development is the ability to
change oneself and one’s
situation.

36
Bibliography    

Bentz, V. M. And J. J. Shapiro. (1998). Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. Thousands Oaks,
California: Sage Publications

CIDA Evaluation Guide (2001)

CIDA Evaluation Guide (2004), prepared by Evaluation Division Performance and Knowledge
Management Branch, Robert Jones and Valerie Young and Chris Stanley Oakron
Consultants Inc. Ottawa, Canada

Cook Greuter, S. A detailed description of the development of nine action logics adapted from
ego development theory for the leadership development framework. Available at
http://www.cook-greuter.com/

Cook Greuter, S. (1999) Postautonomous ego development its nature and measurement.
Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. UMI
Dissertation Information Services UMI #9933122

Dick, B. (2002) “Action research: action and research”. Retrieved on April 23, 2007
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html

Earl, S., F. Carden, and T. Smutylo. (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and
Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC

Edward Jackson and Yusuf Kassam (1998) Knowledge Shared. Ottawa: IDRC Kumarian
Press.

Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2006). “Integral Research: A multi-method approach to investigating

phenomena,” in Constructivism and the Human Sciences 11 (1-2) pp 79-107.

Estrella, Marisol (Ed.) (with: Jutta Blauert, Dindo Campilan, John Gaventa, Julian
Gonsalves, Irene Guijt, Deb Johnson and roger Ricafort) (2000). Learning From Change.
Issues and experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. (Ottawa:
International Development Research Centre)

Estrella, M., and J. Gaventa. (1998, 2001). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and
evaluation: a literature review. (IDS Working Papers, 70). Brighton: IDS

Gebser, J. (1985) The ever-present origin. Athens: Ohio Univ.Press.

Gueye, M., D. Diouf, T. Chaava, D. Tiomkin. (2005). Community Capacity Enhancement

Handbook. Leadership For Results Programme, UNDP HIV/AIDS Group Bureau for
Development Policy.

Habermas, J. 1979. Communication and the evolution of society. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston.

37
 Beacon Press

Hochachka, G. (2005). Developing Sustainability, Developing the Self. An Integral Approach

to Community and International Development. POLIS Project on Ecological
Governance. University of Victoria.

Hochachka, G. (2008) “Case Studies in Integral Approaches in International Development: An

Integral Research Project.” Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. 3(2) 58-108

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennett-Larty, K. Noele Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza

Silva, L. T. Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I. K. Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. S.
Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. (2003). Evaluating Capacity Development.
Experiences from Research and Development Organizations around the World.
Ottawa: IDRC.

IDRC. “Briefing Book”, February 2006.

IDRC. “Capacity Building Strategic Evaluation. Summary of Findings of Phase 1 and 2.” April
2006.

Jordan, T. 1998. Constructions of ‘development’ in Local Third World Communities: Outline

of a Research Strategy. Occassional Papers 1998:6 Kulturgeografiska Institutionen,
Goteborgs Universitet. (see: www.av.gu.se/hem/thomas/development.pdf)

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, Integral Research Special Edition. (2008). (3)1 & (3)2

Kegan, R., Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass

Kegan, R. 1994. In Over Our Heads. The Mental Demands of Modern Life. (Cambrigde,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press)

Loevinger, J. 1976. Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Loevinger, J & Wessler, E. (1978). Measuring Ego Development, Vols 1 and 2.

Mainstreaming HIV and AIDS in Sectors & Programmes. An Implementation Guide for
National Responses (put forth by World Bank, UNDP and UNAIDS), retrieved on
April 23, 2007: http://www.undp.org/hiv/

Maslow, A. (1971) The Farther Reachers of Human Nature. (New York: Penguin Books)

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

McLaren, K. and D. Kelleher. (2005). “New Horizons in Organizational Development.” Au

Courant. A Publication of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation 13(2),

38
 pp. 6-9

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Narayan-Parker, D. (1993). “Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water

and Sanitation.” World Bank Technical Paper Number 207. Washington, D.C.

Neilson, S. and C. Lusthaus. 2007. IDRC-Supported Capacity Building: Developing a

Framework for Capturing Capacity Changes. Universalia. February 2007.

Piaget, J. 1977. The essential Piaget. Eds. H. Gruber and J. Voneche. (New York: Basic
Books)

Pretty (1994) adapted from Adnan et al (1992). Retrieved, February 28th, 2009:
http://www.iapad.org/participation-ladder.htm

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
and practice. London: Sage Publications.

Reason, P. & Torbert, W. (2001) The action turn: Toward a transformational social
science. Concepts and Transformation. 6:1, 1-37.
Stein, Z. and K. Heikkinen. (2007). “On operationalizing altitude: an introduction to the
Lectical Assessment System for Integral Researchers.” Journal of Integral Theory and
Practice (in press)

Sharma, M., M. Gueye, S. Reid, C. F. Sarr. 2005. Leadership Development Programme

Implementation Guide – The Answer Lies Within. Leadership Development for Results.
UNDP’s response to HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS Group, Bureau for Development Policy.

Stein, Z. and K. Heikkinen. (2007). “On operationalizing altitude: an introduction to the

Lectical Assessment System for Integral Researchers.” AQAL Journal of Integral Theory
and Practice (in press)

Wilber, K. (1981). Up From Eden. Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000, 1996). A brief history of everything (2nd ed.). Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2002) Kosmic Trilogy: Volume 2 Excerpts: A, B, C, D, G. Retrieved on: April 23,
2007: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/

Wilber, Ken (2006) Integral Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

39
i
Retrieved, February 26, 2009 from www.communitiescommittee.org/fsitool/Chapter4.pdf

40