Given Hapunda

126 M&E staff may also produce biased results if they hold strong opinions or beliefs (either positive or negative) about an M&E activity or project. Staff must remain neutral and promote evidence-based reporting by ensuring that data are allowed to speak for itself in an objective and unbiased manner (Hegans, 2008). 2. Ensuring that M&E activities are systematic, accurate, fair, and also identify the project’s strengths and weaknesses. This means data should be collected using agreed upon procedure and widely known procedure. The data collected should reflect the state or opinions of the respondent in a fair and unbiased way, reflecting the views of the population. 3. Clearly communicate the methodology or approach to allow stakeholders to understand and critique M&E activities. Methodologies should include tools and questions to capture both the intended and unintended project impact, whether positive or negative. Openly explore the strengths and weaknesses of the adopted approach with clients and stakeholders, so that the results can be accurately interpreted within their context and limitations. Acknowledge any evident weaknesses in the planning stage and any additional unanticipated weaknesses in reports and documentation. Reflection events and M&E reports should include a thorough methodology section detailing all limitations of the approach (Hegans, 2008). The issue here is transparency in evaluation data, findings and openness about methodological decisions and interpretation of conclusions (Patton, 2008). A number of in-service applicants who attend our programmes at the University of Zambia always claim that they are very competent they just need a paper (certification) to back up their experience and competence in M&E. Surprisingly during course work, their competence is challenged, perhaps because Focus Box 2: Collecting Data from an Excluded Data Source A faith based organisation in Zambia in collaboration with a University in the USA started a mental health program in Kabwe, Makululu compound. The programme trained local people as community assessors, whose main job was to assess and identify children with mental problems. After identifying such children, they would then refer them to a community therapists. It so happened that, community assessors discriminated who to assess based on relations they had with the children. Mostly they assessed and referred for counselling children who were related to them or children of their colleagues because they thought children would be given some money at the end of the session. The result was that children who came for therapy had no mental issues that required therapy. This professional bias, did not only cost the opportunity to serve deserving children, but was also a waste of resource (payment to therapist and transport from Lusaka to Kabwe).