Examining community participation in process evaluation of humanitarian food 

security projects in Matobo Zimbabwe 

  

Mbakisi Nyoni 

A research report submitted to the faculty of Management, University of the 

Witwatersrand, in 50% requirement for the of Master of Management degree (in the field 

of Public and Development sector Monitoring and Evaluation).  

 

 

 

December, 2023 



ii 
 

Table of Contents 
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... vi 

Declaration.................................................................................................................................... vii 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... viii 

List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... ix 

List of tables ...................................................................................................................................x 

List of figures ................................................................................................................................ xi 

Chapter one ....................................................................................................................................1 

1.0 Introduction, background, research questions  ...................................................................1 

1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 

1.1.2 Overview of the study.......................................................................................................1 

1.1.3 Research background  ......................................................................................................1 

1.1.4 Brief profile of Matobo district ........................................................................................2 

1.1.5 Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................4 

1.1.6 Purpose Statement ...........................................................................................................5 

1.1.7 Research Objectives.........................................................................................................5 

1.1.8 Research questions ..........................................................................................................5 

1.1.9 Delimitations of the study ................................................................................................6 

1.1.10 Assumptions of the study..............................................................................................6 

1.1.11 Justification of the study ...............................................................................................6 

1.1.11 Scope of the study ..........................................................................................................7 

1.1.12 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................7 

1.1.13 Organisation of the Dissertation ...................................................................................8 

1.2 Conclusion................................................................................................................................8 

Chapter Two ...................................................................................................................................9 

Literature review and key theories ..............................................................................................9 

2.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................9 

2.1 Global food security situation  ............................................................................................9 

2.2 Regional food security situation  ........................................................................................9 

2.3. Food security situation in Zimbabwe  ............................................................................. 10 

2.4 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 12 

2.5 Importance of process evaluation in humanitarian interventions  ............................... 12 

2.5.1 Elements of process evaluation .................................................................................... 15 



iii 
 

2.5.2 When to conduct a process evaluation ........................................................................ 19 

2.6 Systems thinking theory of evaluation ............................................................................... 19 

2.6.1 Overview of systems thinking theory........................................................................... 19 

2.6.1.1 Background and purpose  ........................................................................................... 19 

2.6.2 Application of systems thinking in monitoring and evaluation  ................................ 22 

2.6.3 Decoding complex interventions using systems thinking  ........................................ 23 

2.7 Social capital theory .............................................................................................................. 23 

2.7.1 Background and purpose .............................................................................................. 23 

2.7.2 Application of social capital in monitoring and evaluation of projects ................... 24 

2.8 Overview of participation theory ......................................................................................... 25 

2.8.1 Background and purpose .............................................................................................. 25 

2.8.2 Purpose of participation................................................................................................. 26 

2.8.3 Importance of participation in monitoring and evaluation ........................................ 27 

2.8.4 Purpose of participatory monitoring and evaluation  ................................................. 27 

2.9 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 29 

Chapter Three ............................................................................................................................... 30 

Research Methodology and Data collection............................................................................. 30 

3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30 

3.1 Research Approach ............................................................................................................... 30 

3.2 Research design  .................................................................................................................... 30 

3.2.1 Case study design  .......................................................................................................... 31 

3.3 Research tools and their application ............................................................................... 32 

3.3.1 Individual interviews....................................................................................................... 33 

3.3.2 Focus group discussions .............................................................................................. 35 

3.3.3 Key informant Interviews ............................................................................................... 37 

3.4 Sampling Framework ............................................................................................................ 39 

3.4.1 Sampling methods .......................................................................................................... 39 

3.5 Validity, reliability and dependability .................................................................................. 42 

3.6 Limitations, feasibility and positionality ............................................................................. 43 

3.7 Data Presentation and Analysis Procedures  ..................................................................... 43 

3.8 Ethical considerations .......................................................................................................... 44 

3.9 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 45 

Chapter four.................................................................................................................................. 46 



iv 
 

REEWF project case study, Data presentation and findings ................................................. 46 

4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 46 

4.1 FPC REEWF case study ........................................................................................................ 46 

4.1.1 Project implementation  .................................................................................................. 50 

4.2 Individual interviews data presentation and findings  ....................................................... 53 

4.2.1 Key themes and findings from individual interviews ................................................. 54 

4.2.2 Beneficiary participation in project evaluation  ........................................................... 54 

4.2.3 Participation in Process evaluation .............................................................................. 55 

4.2.4 Strategies to improve process evaluation of projects  ............................................... 57 

4.2.5 Strategies to improve community participation .......................................................... 58 

4.2.6 The role of community participation in process evaluation  ...................................... 58 

4.2.3 Key informant data presentation and findings  ............................................................... 62 

4.2.4 Focus group discussion data presentation and findings .............................................. 64 

4.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 67 

Chapter five .................................................................................................................................. 68 

Data analysis and discussion of results  ................................................................................... 68 

5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 68 

5.1 Discussion of key findings from individual interviews ..................................................... 68 

5.1.2 Humanitarian food security projects in Ward 18  ........................................................ 68 

5.1.3 Humanitarian Organisations in Ward 18 ...................................................................... 69 

5.1.4 Project implementation  .................................................................................................. 70 

5.1.5 Beneficiaries of the project ............................................................................................ 71 

5.1.6 Beneficiary involvement in project evaluation  ............................................................ 71 

5.1.7 Process evaluation ......................................................................................................... 72 

5.1.8 Strategies to enhance participation in projects  .......................................................... 73 

5.2 Project design and participation  ...................................................................................... 73 

5.3 Key informant views on participation.............................................................................. 74 

5.3.1 Key informants’ views on process evaluation  ............................................................ 76 

5.4 Relationship between cross-cutting issues and participation  ..................................... 77 

5.5 Stakeholder involvement and process evaluation ......................................................... 77 

5.6 Community views on participation and process evaluation  ........................................ 78 

5.7 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 81 

Chapter six.................................................................................................................................... 82 



v 
 

Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................................... 82 

6.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 82 

6.1 Research Summary ............................................................................................................... 82 

6.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 89 

6.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 90 

6.4 Areas of further study and improvement............................................................................ 91 

6.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 92 

References .................................................................................................................................... 93 

Appendix I: Individual interview guide ...................................................................................... 99 

Appendix II: Key informant interview guide ........................................................................... 101 

Appendix III: Focus group discussion guide  ......................................................................... 103 

Appendix IV: Individual interview data presentation and findings ................................................... 106 

APPENDIX V: Key informant data presentation and findings .............................................. 107 

APPENDIX VI: Focus group discussion data presentation and findings ........................... 108 

APPENDIX VII: Permission letter- Ward 18 Councillor.......................................................... 109 

APPENDIX VIII: Permission Letter-Department of Social Welfare ....................................... 112 

APPENDIX IX: Permission letter- District Development Coordinator ................................. 115 

APPENDIX X: Permission letter- Sizimele Organisation ....................................................... 118 

APPENDIX XI: Permission letter-AGRITEX ............................................................................. 120 

APENDIX XII: Wits ethics clearance letter and certificate  .................................................... 122 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 
 

Abstract 

Climate change in Africa has resulted in devastating food insecurity especially among 

rural households in the semi-arid regions. The purpose of this research was to examine 

the roles of the local community in the process evaluation of the Fambidzanai 

Permaculture Centre food security project that is intended to improve food security in 

Matobo District, Ward 18. One key finding from the study is that community engagement 

in humanitarian interventions was key to improving community participation in community 

projects. The study also discovered that major constraints to community participation 

includes: lack of community inclusion in project design and planning stages, inadequate 

knowledge of project planning and management and inadequate knowledge of monitoring 

and evaluation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vii 
 

Declaration 

I declare that report is my own, unaided work. It is submitted in partial fulfilment of the 

requirements of the degree of Master of Management (in the field of Public and 

Development Sector Monitoring and Evaluation) at the University of the Witwatersrand, 

Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any 

other university. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________ 

Mbakisi Nyoni 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

 

 



viii 
 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to my Supervisor, Dr. Angelita Kithatu-Kiwekete for her guidance and 

support throughout the research process; Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre for allowing 

me to use their REEWF project as a case study; Matobo Rural District Council authorities 

for allowing me to conduct the study in their district; Mr. Weed Moyo for providing me with 

accommodation during data collection in the field. Without their assistance, this research 

would not have been possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ix 
 

List of abbreviations 
 

AGRITEX  Agricultural Technical and Extension Services 

DAEO   District Technical and Extension Services 

DC   District Coordinator 

DSW   Department of Social Welfare 

DSWO  District Social Welfare Officer 

FGD   Focus Group Discussion 

FPC REEWF Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre Renewable Empowering       

Women Farmers project 

FPC   Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre 

MoU   Memorandum of Understanding 

MRDC  Matobo Rural District Council 

NGO   Non-Governmental Organisation 

NGOs   Non-Governmental Organisations 

PME   Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 

RDC    Rural District Council 

RDDC  Rural District Development Committee 

REEWF  Renewable Energy empowering Women Farmers 

ZimVAC  Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



x 
 

List of tables 

 

Table 3.1 Sample size          40 

Table 3.2 List of key informants         41 

Table.3.3 Focus groups          41 

Table 4.1 Garden beneficiaries         48 

Table 4.2 Small grain seed beneficiaries                 49 

Table 4.3 Individual interview key findings       59 

Table 4.4 Key informant data key findings                 67 

Table 4.5 Focus group data key findings       82 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



xi 
 

List of figures 
 

Figure 1.1 Map of Matobo District                   3 

Figure 2.1 Food situation in Matobo district      11 

Figure 2.2 Theoretical framework        28 

Figure 4.1 Gender of respondents                                                                            50 

Figure 4.2 Respondents’ views on project plan                                                        51 

Figure 4.3 Chicken project performance                                                                  52 

Figure 4.4 Evaluation proportion                                                                              54 

Figure 4.5 Process evaluation knowledge                                                                56 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



1 
 

Chapter one 

1.0 Introduction, background, research questions 

1.1 Introduction 

1.1.2 Overview of the study 
 

The problem of insecurity in Africa has resulted in severe hunger and starvation especially 

among the rural households who solely depend on subsistence farming as their source 

of food. Climate change has worsened this phenomenon in the semi-arid tropics of Sub-

Saharan Africa especially in the developing countries like Zimbabwe where this study was 

conducted. The purpose of this research was to examine the roles of the local community 

in the process evaluation of the Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre food security project 

in order to improve food security in Matobo District, Ward 18. One of the key findings of 

the study was that community engagement in humanitarian interventions was an 

underemphasised factor. The study also discovered that some of the major constraints to 

community participation were lack of community inclusion in project design and planning 

stages. 

  

This chapter presents a general overview of evaluation and food security situation in the 

semi-arid tropics and in particular, Matobo District, Ward 18. The focus of the study was 

in Ward 18 of Matobo District which is one of the 25 wards of the district.  

This chapter highlights the background of the research and the main research problem. 

Also included in this chapter are the background to the study, research questions, 

research objectives, significance of the study, limitations and delimitations of the study. 

The overall layout and summary of all the chapters in the research report is included in 

this initial chapter. 

1.1.3 Research background 

The state of food insecurity in Matobo District as one of the most hard-hit districts in 

Zimbabwe gave the researcher the impetus to examine the role played by the community 

in process evaluation of humanitarian food security projects in Matobo District, Ward 18 



2 
 

in Zimbabwe. Although the study was buttressed by data from humanitarian organisations 

implementing food security projects in the district focus was on the case of a food security 

program that was being implemented by a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) called 

Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre (FPC). This program is called Renewable Energy 

Empowering Women Farmers, abbreviated as (REEWF). The program had been running 

for over five years in the district. 

1.1.4 Brief profile of Matobo district 

The district is located in Matabeleland South province of Southern Zimbabwe. Matobo 

District shares a border with Mangwe District in the west, Gwanda in the east, 

uMzingwane in the north and Botswana in the South west. It lies in the Beitbridge South 

Western Lowveld Communal livelihood zone. This is a low-lying area with an average 

annual rainfall of 300-500 millimetres (mm) that falls between October and February of 

each rainy season. This marginal rainfall results in mid-season dry spells that affect crop 

growth leading to low yields that worsen food shortages in the district. According to the 

Zimbabwe land capability classification, it is under ecological Region IV. The map below 

shows the location of Matobo District. 

 



3 
 

 

Figure 1.1 Map of Matabeleland South Province showing position of Matobo District. 

Source: OCHA, 2019   

The predominant livelihood system in this district is mixed farming, combining crop and 

livestock production. Rain fed cultivation of millet, sorghum and maize is practiced on 

sandy loam soils that are infertile and marginal for agriculture. Ox-drawn ploughs 

complemented by hand digging tools such as hoes are the primary means of cultivation. 

Men and women share agriculture labour activities, with men performing more laborious 

land preparation activities, and women providing the weeding, threshing and harvesting 

labour. Quelea birds commonly attack the sorghum and millet crop, and are controlled by 

scaring them away providing extra labour to the already burdened communal farmers. 

Extended mid-season dry spells and poor soil fertility combine to make this a chronically 

food deficit area. Livestock production is important for access to food and cash income. 

South Africa 

Botswana 



4 
 

The main livestock reared are cattle and goats. Both livestock types provide milk for 

household consumption. Cross-border labour exports to Botswana and South Africa 

make a significant contribution to household income in form of remittances (ZimVAC, 

2021)  

 

1.1.5 Problem Statement 

ZimVAC (2019) noted that in the Zimbabwean context, the problem of food insecurity had 

been of major concern especially in the semi-arid low rainfall areas of the southern part 

of the country. Food security projects have been implemented in the country by both the 

government through the Ministry of Agriculture and rural Resettlement and Non-

Governmental Organisations (NGOs) ZimVAC (2019). The study seeks to examine the 

role of community participation with particular focus in process evaluation of humanitarian 

projects because process evaluation gives the project direction during its implementation. 

It is during project implementation that project beneficiaries are involved physically in the 

project.  

The study established that these projects had encountered different levels of success 

throughout their lifespan. The role of community participation in the conducting of process 

evaluation of food security projects was largely underemphasised. Farmers who 

participated fully in project activities  and during project implementation had the potential 

to increase crop yields (Abdoulaye et al., 2012). Cummings (1997a) argued that it was 

important to include community participation in project evaluations considering the degree 

to which the need for true participation was possible. This research examined the role 

played by the community in conducting process evaluation of food security projects in 

Ward 18 of Matobo District. The results of the study are expected to inform the 

government, the donors and Non-Governmental Organisations to plan, design and 

evaluate projects to suit community needs and community dynamics. The study is 

expected to contribute to literature on roles of the community in process evaluation of 

humanitarian projects. The research is also expected to bridge the knowledge gap on the 

importance of community participation in improving of food security interventions at 

community level.  



5 
 

1.1.6 Purpose Statement 

The purpose of this research was to examine the role of the local community in the 

process evaluation of food security projects with focus on the case of Fambidzanai 

Permaculture Centre Renewable Energy Empowering Women Farmers (FPC REEWF) 

project. This research was done in order to establish how community capacities can be 

built for the improvement of food security in Matobo District, Ward 18. This research 

examined how the role played by the community project participants in process evaluation 

enhanced performance of food security projects in the district. The following section of 

the report discusses the research objectives and the research questions. 

1.1.7 Research Objectives   

The following objectives guided the study: 

1. To examine the extent of community participation in process evaluation of 

Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre humanitarian food security interventions in 

Matobo District, Ward 18. 

2. To examine the input of the community in process evaluation of humanitarian food 

security projects.  

3.  To explore the implications of neglecting stakeholders within the community in 

process evaluation of humanitarian food security projects. 

4. To proffer strategies that enhance community participation in process evaluation 

of food security projects. 

 1.1.8 Research questions 

The following research questions guided the study: - 

1. How are communities involved in process evaluation of humanitarian food security 

interventions in Matobo District, Ward 18?   

2. What input does the community have in process evaluation of food security 

projects? 

3. What are the implications of neglecting community stakeholders in process 

evaluation of food security projects? 

4. What strategies can be put in place to enhance community participation in process 

evaluation of food security projects? 



6 
 

1.1.9 Delimitations of the study 

The study boundaries included geographical, timeframe, theoretical/ literature, limitation 

and study participants. Geographically the study was conducted in a semi-arid region of 

where the problem of food insecurity was of major concern. Due to time limitation the 

study was a single case study design focusing on one district and one ward. The study 

was conducted and confined only to FPC REEWF project in Matobo district, Ward 18. 

REEWF project beneficiaries were the ones targeted by the study. The theoretical 

framework of the study focused mainly on process evaluation which the study established 

was key to success of humanitarian food security projects.  

 1.1.10 Assumptions of the study 

The researcher assumed that the current calm political situation prevailed up to the end 

of the study.  It was also assumed that communities participate fully throughout the 

research. With the polarised political situation in the country the researcher assumed that 

the situation did not deteriorate further leading to field visits being dangerous to the 

researcher and the communities. Lastly it was assumed that the target population would 

be accessed at set times. Details on the study assumptions are discussed in chapter 

three of this report. 

1.1.11 Justification of the study 

Apanovich & Mazur (2018) stated that the main threat to food security had been 

deteriorating climatic conditions and a decline in soil fertility. This had led to perennial 

food shortages and resultant food insecurity among rural communities. A multi - 

stakeholder approach was adopted in a bid to address food insecurity among 

communities. These food security projects had been implemented by both the 

government and NGOs for some time in the district. Project evaluations had been 

conducted for these projects to ascertain their success. Process evaluation was observed 

to be key in determining whether the project was being implemented according to plan  

(Leontjevas et al., 2012). However, the role of the community in conducting process 

evaluation of food security projects remained underemphasised. Participation in 

community projects has been of major concern hence the study concentrated on talking 



7 
 

and getting ideas from people who participated in projects rather than the community at 

large.  

This study was conducted to fill in the gap in participation in process evaluation which 

was the underemphasis of the role played by project beneficiaries during the conducting 

of process evaluation of food security projects. This study was also expected to also 

indirectly contributed to the primary stakeholders who are the Ward 18 community in 

particular and the Matobo district community in general by highlighting some of the key 

contributions process evaluation of food security projects can achieve towards food 

security. Other stake holders involved included Rural District Council (RDC), policy 

makers, and government departments like Agritex and research institutions. The 

University (Wits) was also expected to benefit as they might conduct similar research 

practices in an endeavour to expand their community-based programs.  

1.1.11 Scope of the study 

For the purpose of this study the researcher concentrated and focused on the FPC 

REEWF in Ward 18. The research seeks to establish the community’s role in conducting 

process evaluation of food security projects. Process evaluations had been conducted 

before but mainly by the implementing organisation during their quarterly visits to the 

project area. For the period five-year period that covers the FPC food security project in 

Ward 18, process evaluations were conducted informally during monthly field visits to the 

field and those mainly targeted project committee members. Other forms of evaluation 

are not covered and are only mentioned as examples or in passing to illustrate certain 

points within the study because evaluation is broad and includes other types of 

evaluations which are not important for the study. Geographically the researcher focused 

on Matobo District in Natural Region IV. Other wards or areas are only mentioned as 

examples or where necessary to explain certain concepts. The study covered and made 

reference to the period as from year 2017 to 2022 which covers the period of the first and 

second phase of the FPC food security project in Ward 18.  

1.1.12 Limitations of the study 

Considering that the whole of Matabeleland South province is a semi-arid area, it would 

have been fair to carry out this study at district level and focus on multiple case studies 



8 
 

of projects in the district. However, time and resources were a limiting factor. Choosing 

Matobo’s Ward 18 and the FPC REEWF project as a single case study was also 

convenient considering the transport network and the fact that the ward had several 

NGOs and government departments who were into food security projects in the area. The 

researcher funded the whole study from his own resources hence it would have been 

difficult to cover a large area. Journeys to the field were sometimes challenging both 

physically and financially as there was need to revisit some areas more than once at times 

especially where key respondents were not seen with the initial visit.  

1.1.13 Organisation of the Dissertation 

The research is organised into six chapters. Chapter one discusses the introduction, 

background to the study, the problem statement and research objectives. The research 

questions, justification of the study and limitations of the study are included in chapter 

one. Chapter two focuses on the literature review guiding the study and the discussion of 

key theories. Chapter three discusses the research methodology including the research 

approach and design. Chapter four presents the research data and presentation of key 

findings. Chapter five presents and discuss the data analysis and interpretation of results. 

Chapter six discusses the research conclusions, limitations and recommendations for 

further research. 

1.2 Conclusion 

Chapter one presented the research introduction and overview. In this chapter the 

research background and a brief profile of Matobo district were discussed. The problem 

statement, the purpose of the study and the study objectives were also discussed in this 

chapter. The research questions and the justification of the study were also discussed in 

chapter one. The chapter concludes by discussing the scope of the study, limitations and 

organisation of the research. The following chapter discusses the literature review of the 

study with key focus on the theoretical considerations and conceptual framework of the 

study.  

 



9 
 

Chapter Two 

Literature review and key theories 

2.0 Introduction 

This chapter focuses on the literature review of the research. The literature review 

provides the context of the study and justifies the research problem of food insecurity by 

the analysis of process evaluation and its link to the problem of food insecurity. Literature 

was reviewed with regards to food security, participation, process evaluation and the 

systems thinking theory of evaluation. This research is embedded in the monitoring and 

evaluation sector, a key field in the implementation of humanitarian programs such as 

food security. The key concepts and terms are also developed and discussed in this 

chapter. Key theories for the study are the systems thinking theory, social capital, the 

participation theory of which the systems thinking theory is the key theory to community 

participation in process evaluation of humanitarian food security projects.  

2.1 Global food security situation 

(FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP and WHO, 2021) note that the world had not been generally 

progressing either towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 2.1, of ensuring 

access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food for all people all year round, or towards SDG 

Target 2.2, of eradicating all forms of malnutrition. This had been exacerbated by the 

covid 19 pandemic that led to about 2.37 billion people not having access to adequate 

food in the world (FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP and WHO, 2021). In the 2021 FAO report 

about food and nutrition security in the world, it was further stated that 3 billion people in 

the world did not have access to a healthy diet as a result there was higher level of 

moderate to severe food insecurity.  

2.2 Regional food security situation 

(Mekonnen et al., (2021) posited that climate change has affected agricultural yields 

adversely especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, food insecurity had 

been a perennial problem that has left many countries in the region in serious state of 

economic collapse (Bogweh & Kweyu, 2021). (Giller, 2020) argued that Sub-Saharan 

Africa requires an abundant supply of cheap and nutritious food for the burgeoning 



10 
 

population.  In 2022 in the horn of Africa that includes Somalia and Ethiopia a devastating 

drought in 40 years caused untold serious food insecurity concerns. Erratic rainfall and 

land degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa coupled with high population density has 

exacerbated the situation, (Nedessa and Wickrema 2010).  

2.3. Food security situation in Zimbabwe  

The Zimbabwe food security and Agriculture cluster noted that Covid 19 eroded people’s 

income and resulted in serious food insecurity especially among the already vulnerable 

rural population (Hunger et al., 2021). (WFP, 2022) noted that according to the Second 

Crop and Livestock Assessment conducted in the country for the 2021/2022 Agricultural 

season, maize production had decreased by about 43% compared to the previous season 

and communal land productivity had shrunk by half, anticipating an early and harsh lean 

season for smallholder farming communities. Food production in the Natural Regions of 

Zimbabwe had dropped significantly and this had resulted in serious food insecurity 

among the communities in Zimbabwe.  Matobo District where this study was conducted 

lies in Natural Region IV which is one of the driest parts of the country and crop and 

livestock production are mainly subsistence by communal farmers. Due to climate change 

and variability, Natural Region IV was found to have increased in size further exposing 

the already low productivity of the region to serious food insecurity concerns (Mugandani 

& Wuta, 2012).  

Food insecurity is directly related to poverty and hunger (Mota et al., 2019). People 

suffering from chronic hunger in the world come from the developing countries where it is 

estimated that malnourished people are at 14.3% (Mota et al., 2019). Zimbabwe being 

one of the developing countries and located in the semi-arid tropics had been faced with 

these natural disasters with drought as the major disaster facing the country. The figure 

below shows the food security situation in Matobo district where this research was 

conducted. 



11 
 

 

Figure 2.1 Map showing food crop situation in Matobo District in 2020.   

Source: Nutrition Council of Zimbabwe 2020, pp 41 

The REEWF humanitarian food security project is implemented by FPC and targeted 

Matobo district to alleviate hunger and poverty. Humanitarian food security projects have 

been implemented in Matobo district by both the government and Non -Governmental 

Organisations (NGOs). The research established that project beneficiaries were more 

used to end of project evaluation. Process or implementation evaluation was not usually 

conducted during program implementation. The implementing partner focused mainly on 

field visits and field monitoring focusing on project committee members. This left the 

possibility of project failure and unsustainability very high.  

Matobo 

district 



12 
 

2.4 Evaluation  

(Posavac, 2016) defined program evaluation as an activity that organisations do routinely 

either formally or informally so that they know how interventions benefit the intended 

beneficiaries. Program evaluation is a valuable tool for program managers who are 

seeking to strengthen the quality of their programs and improve outcomes (Metz, 2007).  

Program evaluation answers basic questions about a program’s effectiveness, and 

evaluation data can be used to improve program services. The two main categories of 

evaluation are process evaluation and outcomes evaluation (Stewart et al., 2022). This 

research focused on process evaluation as this is the evaluation that is conducted when 

the program is at the implementation stage and where communities who are the 

beneficiaries are expected to be fully involved (Ryan et al., 1998). The research was 

conducted focusing on the FPC REEWF humanitarian food security project that was 

being implemented in Ward 18 of Matobo district. The following section focuses on the 

importance of process evaluation in project implementation. 

 

2.5 Importance of process evaluation in humanitarian interventions 

(WHO, 2018) argued that process evaluations are recognised as a critical component in 

program development and evaluation. This is a type of evaluation that reflects the true 

state of the project as it is being implemented. This form of evaluation is sometimes 

referred to as implementation evaluation in some organisations. Process evaluations are 

aimed at enhancing understanding of the project as it is being implemented. Process 

evaluations measure what is done by the programme, and for whom these services are 

provided (Saunders et al., 2014). (Saunders et al., 2014) further noted that process 

evaluations assist in the identification of ‘active ingredients’ of treatment, and assess 

whether a programme is meeting accepted standards as agreed. Therefore, this 

argument reinforces that process evaluation deals with the coverage and the processes 

of the project. Process evaluation is also a form of formative evaluation (Bleijlevens et al., 

2013).   Any deviation from the initial plan is easily identified when a process evaluation 

is conducted to a project. The research focused on the role the project beneficiaries play 

in the conducting of process evaluation of humanitarian food security projects in particular 



13 
 

the project that was implemented by FPC. The study critically examined the importance 

of process evaluation especially by those to whom the project was intended for.  

  

Conducting process evaluation during the life of the project is used for accountability, 

program development and improvement and setting up similar projects and programs in 

other areas. For accountability purposes process evaluation shows whether the 

programme is accomplishing what it is expected to accomplish. Governments and social 

agencies that sponsor projects sometimes require recipients of funding to provide 

evidence that the funds are being used as expected. These evaluations keep track of 

project progress and identify any challenges emanating during project implementation. 

Beneficiaries of projects expect managers of implementing organisations to be 

accountable for their use of resources and level of service provision (Chavez & Nam, 

2020). However, the study established that there was a literature gap with regards to the 

role the project participants played in conducting these process evaluations. 

 

(Silies et al., 2020) argued that although an effect or outcome evaluation is often the 

primary goal of intervention research, it does not provide insight into why and how an 

intervention was successful or failed. The findings of the study established that there was 

no clear system of evaluation within the community that was used to assess project 

implementation. A process evaluation can be conducted to collect data about how 

interventions were planned and implemented. A properly conducted process evaluation 

can help explain the success or failure of finding a relationship between the intervention 

and the outcomes of interest (Zarrett et al., 2020). (Zarrett et al., 2020) further argued that 

when an intervention is delivered and received as planned but no effect of the intervention 

is found on the project beneficiaries, the project is likely to be regarded as a failure. At 

project design a theory of change is developed to guide the project during its 

implementation. That theory of change is monitored through conducting of a process 

evaluation during the lifespan of the project. However, when an intervention is poorly 

executed (i.e., not delivered or received according to the protocol), “this indica tes program 

failure and no conclusions should be drawn about the effectiveness of the intervention” 

(Goenka et al., 2010) 



14 
 

Process evaluation answers the question ‘was the intervention implemented as planned?’ 

(Grasso, 2003).  (Leontjevas et al., 2012) argued that process evaluation is completed 

before impact and outcome evaluation which assess the intervention effects because it 

is pointless to expect successful intervention outcomes if the intervention had not reached 

the target group, involved the appropriate stakeholders or engaged with the community 

as intended. Process evaluation is an integral part of evaluation to assess whether the 

different program elements were delivered as intended. Therefore, the above argument 

concurs with this research that process evaluation assesses intervention implementation 

and is concerned with questions relating to intervention exposure, reach, participant 

satisfaction, delivery, fidelity, and contextual aspects of the intervention. When a process 

evaluation is conducted it is likely that the results will provide specific information to help 

improve the implementation of interventions. 

 

Hughes et al (2008) argued that both qualitative and quantitative methods are used in 

process evaluation. Quantitative methods measure reach, delivery and exposure aspects 

of the intervention while qualitative methods assess participant satisfaction, fidel ity and 

context elements of intervention delivery. This research was conducted using qualitative 

methods to establish the views of the beneficiaries with regards to the program. Hughes’ 

argument enhances the point that process evaluation is also of managerial importance 

by providing rapid feedback on the quality and integrity of the implementation, identifying 

ways to improve delivery, resource adequateness and an understanding of the factors 

associated with success or failure. 

Process evaluation techniques are also useful to monitor intervention delivery, even when 

there is confidence that the intervention is being delivered in its best form and running as 

intended. The research discovered that continued monitoring is a form of quality 

assurance. It ensures that the quality of the intervention meets standards of good 

practice. It can also be used to ensure that effectiveness of an intervention strategy is 

maintained when diffused into multiple environments. The next section of th e report 

discusses key elements in process evaluation. 

 



15 
 

2.5.1 Elements of process evaluation 

(Saunders et al., 2014) observed that most common elements of process evaluation are 

exposure, reach, satisfaction, delivery, context and fidelity.  These elements were used 

during the research with regards to the FPC project that was implemented in Ward 18 

especially satisfaction, fidelity, reach and context that are assessed by qualitative 

methods of research. 

 

Exposure 

(Skoruks, 2014) documented that exposure examines the extent that the target group are 

engaged, aware of their problem or receptive to and/or use the strategy, resource or 

message being implemented. Exposure means that people are aware of what is 

happening around them. The study was conducted to examine whether the beneficiaries 

were aware of process evaluation with regards to the interventions they were involved in. 

Monitoring exposure can enable intervention planners to take corrective action to ensure 

the target population and participants are receiving and using resources and services 

provided to them. (Leontjevas et al., 2012) revealed that describing or quantifying the 

awareness or the extent the intervention was received was very crucial, as failure to 

achieve recognition and awareness of an intervention can have a fundamental impact on 

subsequent participants and intervention reach. 

 

Reach 

(CDC, 2009) observed that reach considers the proportion of the target group who 

participated in the intervention. The targeted population or population reached is often 

measured by numbers. The research was conducted to also discover the project reach 

of FPC. During a process evaluation the exact numbers reached by the intervention are 

established and physical verification of those involved in the project is done. These figures 

can then be expressed as a total percentage of the community or district. Percentages 

are useful for graphical representation however ratios such as 1 in 25 are commonly used 

when describing an intervention (Nutbeam and Bauman (2006). Reach data can also 

involve assessment of recruitment procedures used to approach and attract participants 

at individual or organisational levels and understanding the barriers to participation or 



16 
 

reasons for dropping-out. The research used semi-structured individual interviews and 

focus groups to help identify challenges with access or attendance to the project.  

Monitoring the numbers and characteristics of participants ensures sufficient numbers of 

the target group are being reached. Monitoring and documenting recruitment procedures 

can help ensure a protocol is followed or altered as required. Knowing the reach of the 

program is important for understanding and explaining the subsequent effects. (Lee et 

al., 2013) further noted  that identifying and quantifying any sub groups that were less 

likely to attend showed low participation that will predictably lead to poorer results and 

indicated that additional services, different programs or recruitment strategies may be 

needed. (Burney, 2012) further concurs with (Okada et al., 2008) that process evaluation 

was conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the project, for quality 

enhancement, improved management and assisted in adopting local models. 

 

Satisfaction 

(Colman et al., 2007) posited that satisfaction examined whether the intended and 

targeted beneficiaries of the intervention both primary and secondary were happy with 

and liked the intervention. The intervention participants need to value and enjoy the 

intervention before the desired effects of the intervention can occur. During the research 

the communities expressed reservations about their satisfaction with the project. They 

cited inadequate consultation on key intervention issues such as the budget. In situations 

where the intervention was an idea of the intended beneficiaries, success rate was higher 

than in situations where the intervention was imposed. In Matobo district the study 

discovered that some projects had been left idle after putting a lot of resources in them 

due to poor need assessments on community needs (RDDC, 2022). (Carvalho & White, 

2004) devised that there were three main areas of participant satisfaction that can be 

examined and these were: - 

-Interpersonal issues – ‘do the participants feel comfortable in the intervention? Do they 

feel listened to and understood? Is it easy to interact with other participants? Are the 

facilitators interested, approachable and sincere?’ 

-Service issues – ‘Is the intervention venue convenient and comfortable? Is it easy to get 

to?’ 



17 
 

‘Is the intervention strategy run at a convenient time? Are the facilities adequate? Is the 

intervention too expensive to attend?’ 

- Content issues – ‘Are the topics covered relevant and interesting? Is the information 

presented in the best way? Is the pace too slow or too fast? It is too complex/ easy? Are 

some things being left out or not covered in sufficient depth?’  Trainings are conducted 

extensively during project implementation and of great importance is to cover relevant 

topics at the correct levels of trainings. 

 

Delivery 

Delivery was discussed in this research to assess whether all the activities of the FPC 

REEWF project were being implemented as intended. Delivery usually involves writing 

down all the components of an intervention or intervention strategy then recording and 

tallying the components delivering and comparing to ensure all activities were delivered 

as intended (Worthen, 2013) .  

The study assessed intervention delivery through recording and monitoring the number 

of sessions delivered, the location and completeness of intervention delivery at different 

sites. It also recorded ways that intervention delivery differed at different si tes. In 

Zimbabwe organisations involved in humanitarian work sign a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MoU) with the relevant authorities like the Rural District Council (RDC). 

These then ensure that delivery of the intervention is done correctly at different si tes of 

the district. A memorandum of understanding document was signed between FPC and 

Matobo Rural District Council (MRDC). A Gant chart was then developed and shared 

among stakeholders to track delivery of the intervention at designated times of the year. 

The study also discovered that delivery was also important for ensuring quality of the 

project. Organisations involved in humanitarian work in the district engaged monitoring 

and evaluation officers to ensure programs were monitored and evaluated at agreed 

intervals. After several monitoring and evaluation sessions it is possible to see a picture 

of relative stability or instability and assess the emphasis given to each topic relative to 

the overall objective of the intervention strategy. Such monitoring can enable time 

adjustments and can lead to improvements in intervention design. 

 



18 
 

Context 

Context was considered in the research as it took into account those aspects of the 

environment that may influence intervention implementation or outcomes. (Chavez & 

Nam, 2020; Leontjevas et al., 2012; Saunders et al., 2014) argued that context also 

included describing the different settings and contexts in which interventions were 

delivered, and any contamination or exposure the control group had to the intervention. 

Context can be monitored by keeping a log of problems in the delivery of the intervention 

including differences in different settings, difficulties experienced or barriers to 

implementation. As the respondents were being interviewed issues about the 

environmental, social or financial factors came out that may have influenced the 

implementation of the intervention. For example, in their community garden project which 

was part of some of the projects implemented by FPC project beneficiaries were asked 

what happened when the resources were not available as required or the intervention 

was delivered to the target population in a way that was different from what was planned. 

(Burney, 2012; Lecina et al., 2011; Saunders et al., 2014; WHO, 2018) concluded that 

monitoring aspects of the physical, social and political environment and how they impact 

on intervention implementation enabled corrective action to be taken as necessary and 

ensured the environmental aspects that affected the intervention were described or 

quantified against the intervention impacts or outcomes.  

 

Fidelity 

Fidelity was discussed as part of the study to establish what monitoring and adjustments 

to the intervention were done. The project participants agreed that monitoring visits were 

being done by the implementing partners. They however, could not identify their role in 

monitoring during these processes as project beneficiaries. Nutbeam and Bauman (2014) 

mentioned that fidelity involved monitoring and adjusting intervention implementation as 

required to ensure theoretical integrity and quality of the intervention strategies and 

activities. This section concludes by focusing on the appropriate time to con duct a 

process evaluation and then leads to the next section on a detailed discussion on the 

systems thinking theory of evaluation. 

 



19 
 

2.5.2 When to conduct a process evaluation 

(Brandon, 1998; Saunders et al., 2014) documented that process evaluation is an 

ongoing process. This concludes that as organisations often fall behind in conducting 

process evaluation, it is important to find a balance that allows at least some process 

evaluation to be conducted as a necessary step in assessing project progress.  

2.6 Systems thinking theory of evaluation 

The study discussed the systems thinking of evaluation as a theory that can be used to 

solve complex societal problems like food insecurity. The section covers the background 

to the theory, its origin and purpose of the theory. The strengths, limitations and 

application of the theory is also covered under this section. 

2.6.1 Overview of systems thinking theory  

2.6.1.1 Background and purpose  
 

General systems thinking was developed as a new way of establishing new methods of 

thinking. Systems thinking was developed from the field of engineering by Ludwig von 

Bertalanffy in the early 1950s. The idea was then adopted by different scholars to induce 

new ways of thinking in various fields of study. Von Bertalanffy (1968) observed that the 

roots of systems thinking theory were complex as were the developments in science 

especially in the field of engineering. Desperation in the fields of interest culminated in 

the development of systems thinking theory (Boulding, 1956). In sub-Saharan Africa and 

in particular developing countries, agriculture has become a field of interest as a way to 

address food security to the most vulnerable households of the communities. New 

developments emerged in the world that warranted new ways of doing things especially 

after the Second World War.  A “comparison of society to a biological organism spawned 

several generations of sociological theory and laid the groundwork for the systems idea” 

(Leighninger Jr, 1978, p.447). This then led to systems thinking theory evolving from the 

engineering field to biology. The complexity in microorganisms in biology led to systems 

thinking theory. This complexity cascaded to the complexity of development interventions 

such as food security requiring the use of systems thinking to evaluate such interventions. 

This research adopted the systems thinking theory due to its importance in evaluation of 



20 
 

complex interventions such as the humanitarian food security project that was being 

implemented by FPC in Ward 18 of Matobo district. 

 

Jackson (1994) noted that systems thinking theory came up following events that 

happened during the Second World War from 1939 to 1945. The war caused devastating 

loses both politically, socially and economically including the surrounding environment. 

After the war, there was then a need to bring in new ideas of doing things and new ideas 

of negotiating conflicts.  Systems thinking was a methodology adopted to enhance new 

ways of solving complex problems. These problems were realised in the political, 

economic, social and development fields.  Economic development required stable and 

peaceful nations. Wars led to general infrastructure destruction and countries at war 

always lagged behind in development. The two world wars, the first and the second world 

wars were a lesson learnt to the countries that were at conflict. They realised that the 

world demanded new ways of solving conflicts and systems thinking was an option to 

avoid conflagration.  

 

The growth in demand for evidence-based decision making among politicians and 

bureaucrats hastened the adoption of systems thinking in the modern world (Wotela, 

2017). In Africa, most countries are suffering from political conflicts as a result of 

undemocratic systems of governance. Bureaucrats feel that they have a right to rule 

people and anyone who dares oppose their rule is labelled a traitor or a sell -out. This is 

common in countries which are ruled by revolutionary movements such as the African 

National Congress (ANC) in South Africa and the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union 

Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) in Zimbabwe (CZC, 2022). In the modern world, the continents 

and countries have become more democratic and citizens now demand accountability 

from their leaders. This has perpetuated the idea of systems thinking by the ruling elite to 

address complex issues such as food security in governing their countries.  

 

Boulding (1956) argued that systems thinking was developed through model building 

which lies through pure mathematics and the specific theories of other specialised 

disciplines. Complexity has emerged across disciplines of science in the world and a new 



21 
 

level of solving complexities had to be adopted. With each emerging problem in sciences, 

researchers had to think deeper to come up with a solution.  

Systems thinking was then developed along the way as a new methodology to deal with 

complexity. Components had to be assembled in engineering to form a ‘whole’. This 

demanded thinking on how components originating from heterogeneous technologies can 

be assembled to form one usable machine (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). As science evolved, 

manufacturing industries also demanded new ways of enhancing production and 

minimising costs. This also led to major developments and adjustments to systems 

thinking. Lilienfeld (1975) consented with Bertalanffy (1972) and stressed that the 

methods that were used in physics were inappropriate to biology and this called for new 

ways of thinking in biology. As organic laws evolved, mathematics and statistics were not 

able to address complexities in these, hence, the development of systems thinking to 

address biological complexities.  

Lilienfeld (1975) further observed that one of the functions of systems thinking was to 

develop broad linkages between all fields of study, and to be able to adopt new concepts 

transferable to other fields. Leighninger Jr (1978) posited that systems thinking was a 

totally new way of thinking whose purpose was to look at humans and their surrounding 

environment. This augments the notion that human behaviour is influenced by the 

environment. As humans interacted with the environment, new ways of thinking also 

evolved therefore, systems thinking became an integral part of environmental 

management. Humans needed to adapt to their surroundings and manage their 

surroundings through good decision making. The other purpose of systems thinking was 

“to solve complexities in the engineering field and enhance systems engineering” 

(Beasley, 2017, p.2). In engineering different components needed to be assembled to 

form a machine and that on its own becomes a complex exercise that demands a lot of 

thinking and decision making. Realities exist in life and systems thinking avail and 

illuminate those realities. Each existing situation is viewed and analysed with a second 

thought. Systems thinking purpose is to critique and give insight to an existing complex 

situation. Wotela (2017) noted that systems thinking is an attempt used to identify and 

see-through chaos and understand complexities of different fields of study.  

 



22 
 

2.6.2 Application of systems thinking in monitoring and evaluation 

According to (Gharajedaghi, 2006) systems methodology is based on four foundations. 

These four foundations are holistic thinking, operational thinking, interactive design and 

self-organisation. Holistic thinking focuses on the structure, function and processes in 

systems thinking. Operational thinking explains the dynamics of multiple feedback 

systems. Interactive design redesigns the future and invent ways to deal with future 

challenges. Self-organisation relates to movement towards a predefined order.  This part 

of the literature review focuses on interactive design as a foundation for systems thinking 

methodology. Interactive design describes how a problem, or a ‘mess’ is formulated and 

mapped. Gharajedaghi (2006) argued that a mess is neither an aberration nor a 

prediction, but it is rather an early warning system that illuminates impending undesirable 

consequences as a result of the present undertakings. Therefore, a mess becomes a 

system of problems. The elements of a mess are closely related and none can be dealt 

with independently without influencing the other. In this study food insecurity on its own 

becomes part of a mess. Hence systems thinking theory was adopted in the research. 

 

Gharajedaghi (2006) further argued that the mess is formulated to give a perspective that 

sets the relevant hosts of problems and a shared understanding of why a system behave 

the way it does. Also, a mess is formulated to minimise resistance to change and identify 

possible areas of vulnerability. Formulation of the mess is in three phases whereby 

mapping the mess is the key stage of mess formulation. The other stages include 

searching and telling the story. Mapping the mess of interventions that require monitoring 

and evaluation like the FPC REEWF project was of paramount importance. Wotela (2017) 

posited that development is the broadest term encompassing other contextual and key 

terms. Mapping the mess becomes a foundation to structure the solution (Wotela, 2017).  

Identification of the mess in the research generated large volumes of data that required 

simplifying in order to understand it. The data needed to be synthesised into smaller 

categories so that it can be understood, and sense derived from it. Gharajedaghi (2006) 

asserted that the process of mapping the mess involves creating subsets of various 

phenomena and then identifying themes for each category. Identification of themes 

needed active participation among project participants who had a stake in the project. 



23 
 

This research focused on a humanitarian food security project. This intervention required 

monitoring and evaluation which on its own is as complex as the intervention which it 

intends to monitor and evaluate. 

 

When mapping a mess in development interventions, each theme should be clear and 

well-articulated to identify exactly the underlying issues (Gharajedaghi, 2006). When all 

themes are identified and agreed upon by relevant stakeholders, interactions and 

relationships between these themes are identified and addressed. Gharajedaghi (2006) 

noted that themes can be minimising on their own or be broken into smaller components 

to ascertain their interactions with other elements of a whole.  

 

2.6.3 Decoding complex interventions using systems thinking 

Complex interventions like food security can be decoded better by using systems thinking. 

The most commonly used system to identify and solve complex problems such as food 

insecurity is the use of a problem tree (Norad, 1999). Norad (1999) stated that a problem 

tree was used to identify a major problem, its root causes and the effects the problem has 

on an existing situation. The study focused on food insecurity as the main problem 

affecting communities in Matobo district. The following section in this report discusses the 

theory or concept of social capital. 

2.7 Social capital theory  

2.7.1 Background and purpose  

(Portes, 2010) noted that the theory of social capital began as early as the days of Karl 

Marx’s distinction between an atomised class-in-itself and a mobilised and effective class-

for-itself. (Naviaux & McGowan, 2000) argued that social capital gained prominence in 

the 1990s as it started to be used across all the science disciplines. For the purpose of 

this research the theory of social capital was discussed to examine how communities’ 

social relationships can benefit individuals and organisations beyond their original 

context. (Huang, 2018) defined social capital theory as the benefits that communities 

derive from socialising with each other. The inclusion of social capital theory in the study 

seek to establish interconnected networks of relationships between individuals and 

groups in Ward 18 (social ties or social participation). The levels of trust that characterised 



24 
 

these ties, and resources or benefits that were both gained and transferred by virtue of 

social ties and social participation were also examined.  

In a community people work together to achieve a common purpose or goal (Enoch 

Kwame Tham-Agyekum, 2015; Naviaux & McGowan, 2000; Portes, 2010). Through 

social capital a society or organisation function together as a whole through trust and 

shared identity, norms, values, and mutual relationships. (Huang, 2018; Portes, 2010) 

concurred that social capital theory arose from the human capacity to consider others so 

that they think and act generously together.  

 (Ruz, 2014) noted that social capital theory involves cognitive social capital that includes 

shared norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs. This type of social capital predisposes 

people towards mutually beneficial collective action. The other type of social capital is 

relational social capital which is based on the characteristics of social relationships 

between individuals and is commonly described as including trust and trustworthiness. 

Social capital theory contends that social relationships are resources that can lead to the 

development and accumulation of human capital. This research was conducted in a 

community where social capital theory was key to the adoption and implementation of 

humanitarian projects such as the REEWF project that was being implemented by FPC 

in Ward 18 of Matobo district.   

 

 2.7.2 Application of social capital in monitoring and evaluation of projects 

Communities are not homogenous by nature; hence, each community and its 

surroundings are identified by its beliefs and what they share as a community. Values 

and attitudes are also key in social capital. This concludes that communities will chose to 

participate depending on how they exist in that particular community. Disempowered 

communities have serious participation problems in community projects (Laudia & Iaz, 

2020).  This may result in isolation of communities and disengagement in the 

implementation of developmental projects. (Dudwick et al., 2006) noted that examining 

how groups and networks function in given community can reveal how people or 

households employ different relationships for survival and mobility.  



25 
 

When conducting an evaluation of a project the process can reveal the degree of how 

communities relate to each other within a particular community. Social capital theory 

when employed in monitoring and evaluation can also be used to identify the kinds of 

incentives that can encourage community members to collaborate on projects of shared 

interest. Monitoring and evaluation require communities to be u nited in purpose and 

ideology. Social capital theory emphasises on networking, trust and shared norms and 

values. 

Donors and humanitarian organisations need to believe that high levels of collective 

action will contribute to greater adoption of projects and development effectiveness. 

These findings have a bearing on the targeting and selection of beneficiaries and the 

direction the project will take in order to enhance sustainability.  

In communities where there are high levels of inequality, social capital theory when used 

together with monitoring and evaluation information can become a voice for the poor and 

most vulnerable. This can assist government officials and other development actors 

understand what lies behind survey numbers and thus craft more practical policies to 

increase sustainability of humanitarian projects.  

Finally social capital theory has also improved the ability of development agencies to 

communicate project aims to local communities. A considerable body of qualitative data 

collection in monitoring and evaluation on patterns of inclusion and exclusion from 

informal social networks has also influenced the design of project communication 

strategies (Naviaux & McGowan, 2000). This has enabled project administrators to reach 

more members of a target community with humanitarian projects. The next section of the 

report focuses on the concept of participation. 

2.8 Overview of participation theory  

2.8.1 Background and purpose  

(Sintara et al., 2020) argued that community participation has long existed in society but 

only came to prominence when the issue of human rights gained momentum in the 

nineteenth century. The participation concept emphasises that the community should be 

given an active role in programs and projects that directly affects their livelihoods (Hubley, 

1990). The research examined the role of community participation especially in the 

process evaluation of food security projects where they are mostly involved during project 



26 
 

implementation and what capacity should be built to improve their participation thereby 

improving success of food security projects in the community. 

Community participation is a prerequisite for project implementation (Cummings, 1997a) 

The study noted that community engagement at all stages of the project was key to 

community participation. This encouraged decision making between project 

implementers and the beneficiaries. (Wathome, 2013) identified that even though 

community participation was key to the success of projects, it might only work depending 

on the nature of that particular community and their belief in community participation. The 

research noted that community participation should be emphasised at the design stage 

of the project in order to achieve community buy-in towards the project.  

 

2.8.2 Purpose of participation 

(Ruiz-Villaverde & García-Rubio, 2017) noted that participation is a crucial element in 

project implementation and management. (Duncan & Claeys, 2018; Fullarton et al., 2003; 

Ruiz-Villaverde & García-Rubio, 2017) concurred that community participation in 

humanitarian projects enhances better use of knowledge and experiences from different 

stakeholders; increased project adoption and reduced delays and inefficiencies in project 

implementation. Community participation is important to both people and institutions 

(Campbell, 2008).  Community participation plays a pivotal role in the success of projects 

whether it is in urban or rural setups (Campbell, 2008).  Community participation is key in 

the success of food security projects (Madyaningrum & Sonn, 2011). This was also 

established by the study as the communities noted the unsustainability of projects that 

seize to exist beyond the life of the project itself. As the community participated in projects, 

it was still underemphasised  as to what role they play as the recipients of aid 

(Madyaningrum & Sonn, 2011). The study concurred with (Madyaningrum & Sonn, 2011) 

as it was discovered that the role of community participation in process evaluation of 

projects in Ward 18 was underemphasised and insignificant. It was further noted by 

Liuzzo et al. (2018)  that community participation includes various aspects in its entirety. 

These included advisory bodies, citizen involvement, partnerships and power of decision 

making. This indicated that participation cannot be considered in isolation of other 

community factors.  



27 
 

2.8.3 Importance of participation in monitoring and evaluation 

To emphasise the role of participation in monitoring and evaluation (Chambers, 1994) 

identified and developed participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME). The history of 

participatory methods in development co-operation began in the late 1970s with the 

introduction of a new research approach called Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) (Chambers, 

1994). (Lib, 1999) noted that participatory monitoring and evaluation immediately became 

popular with decision-makers in development agencies.  

2.8.4 Purpose of participatory monitoring and evaluation 

PME is important for guiding local decision making and promoting effective intervention 

implementation (CORE, 2006). PME act as an opium of the oppressed in community 

development. Interventions are usually implemented at community level and they target 

the poor and vulnerable members of the community. By virtue of their status these are 

often ignored during targeting and selection of project beneficiaries. Those who are often 

consulted especially the beneficiaries get the chance to be full partners in determining the 

direction and effectiveness of a project.  

(Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014a) argued that participatory monitoring and evaluation is 

for those communities who have set their goals and would like to closely monitor them to 

achieve success of their projects. (DGP, 2011) documented that PME acknowledges that 

people who benefited from the project are the ones who know the most about their life 

challenges. PME strengthens relations between the implementing partners and the 

communities and trust is created (DGP, 2011). 

As observed by (Onyango, 2018) PME focuses on monitoring and evaluation while  

strengthening and deepening participation including shared learning and joint decision 

making. (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014b) concluded that PME can be used effectively 

within development agencies' needs for accountability. Accountability in project 

management emphasises on accepting responsibility for the conduct and results of a 

specific program (Christopher, 2020). To sum it up the participation of communities in 

development projects solely lies on the nature of the relationship among community 

members and how they interact with each other. Figure 2.2 below illustrates the 

conceptual framework of the study. 



28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Process evaluation was the main concept of the study. This is a critical type of evaluation 

that involves a lot of community participation during project implementation. Systems 

thinking enhanced decision making of key managers in humanitarian organisations 

especially in evaluation of complex interventions such as food security. Social capital 

noted that communities would choose to participate in any projects depending on how 

they existed and related to each other. Finally, these concepts when discussed together, 

it is believed that community participation in humanitarian food security interventions will 

be improved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Process evaluation 

Systems thinking, Social capital 

Community participation 

 

Fig 2.2: The theoretical framework: Source: Author ,2022 



29 
 

 2.9 Conclusion 

This chapter summarises literature in relation to chosen theories and conceptual 

framework. The conceptual framework of the study is presented in figure two of this 

chapter. The conceptual framework links the inferences of the literature to the research 

methodology discussed in the following chapter (chapter three). In chapter two the study 

concluded that process evaluation was key to project success but there was limited 

literature that link process evaluation and community participation. The chapter also 

concluded that the systems thinking theory improved organisations’ management ability 

to make key decisions in evaluation of complex projects such as food security. The 

literature also discussed social capital as important in determining how communities 

relate to each other and take part in community projects. However, the literature reviewed 

underemphasised the role of community participation in process evaluation as they 

partake in these important food security projects. The following chapter discusses the 

research methodology and data collection of the research. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 



30 
 

Chapter Three 

Research Methodology and Data collection 

3.0 Introduction  

Chapter three gives a detailed description of the research methodology and data 

collection for this study. The chapter started with the research approach followed by the 

research design and then the research tools and their application.  Selection of 

respondents and data collection are also discussed in this chapter. Validity, reliability and 

dependability of the study are also part of this chapter. The chapter concludes by focusing 

on data presentation and analysis procedures.  

3.1 Research Approach 

The research approach emphasised the way the study was conducted in order to provide 

a certain set of questions to be asked and how these map an inquiry the study will address 

(Chilisa and Kawulich, 2012).  

 One Non-Governmental Organisation, Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre (FPC) was 

selected purposively to conduct the study pertaining to their humanitarian food security 

project that they had been implementing in Ward 18 of Matobo district in Zimbabwe. The 

project was entitled Renewable Energy Empowering Women Farmers (REEWF). The 

organisation had been operating in the district for 5 years. Since its inception in 1988 the 

organisation had been implementing humanitarian work in the districts of Zimbabwe. 

Their current food security project on which the research focused was a two-year 

extension program that followed a three-year program that started in 2017 ended in 2020. 

The Organisation was funded by donors and was registered as a Non -Governmental 

Organisation in Zimbabwe. Its focus was mainly in livelihoods and food security projects 

of the vulnerable households in the rural communities.  

3.2 Research design 

The research was qualitative in nature because there was need to understand the study 

participants’ lived experiences pertaining to the phenomenon under study (Patton, 2015; 

Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The research examined the community’s role in 

process evaluation of food security projects that they have been involved in with FPC. 



31 
 

The study was a qualitative case study focusing on the FPC REEWF project in Ward 18 

of Matobo district of Matobo District. The main objective of the study was to examine the 

roles the communities play in conducting process evaluations of food security projects in 

order to address the problem of food insecurity in Ward 18 of Matobo District. Qualitative 

research emphasises on words and is usually constructivist and interpretivist in nature 

(Nieuwenhuis & Smit, 2012).  The research was conducted using a constructivist or 

interpretivist paradigm. It was interactive and conducted within the communities’ natural 

surroundings. The researcher travelled to Ward 18 and spent 28 days collecting data in 

the field. Twenty-one days were spent conducting individual interviews while four days 

were spent on focus group discussions. A day was spent on each group. The other three 

days were spent conducting key informant interviews at district level. In total data was 

collected over a period of one month (28 days-). The researcher examined the role the 

beneficiaries of the REEWF project played as they participated in the process evaluation 

of the projects. The epistemological underpinnings of the research were based on the 

belief that truth lies within the experiences of the Ward 18 community beneficiaries of food 

security projects (Bagele & Kawulich, 2012). The ontological underpinnings of the study 

were based on the nature of the reality that existed on the ground with regards to 

community participation in process evaluation of food security projects. The nature of the 

reality was contextual to the research and the community participating in the study 

(Bagele & Kawulich, 2012).  

3.2.1 Case study design 

(Elizabeth, 2016; Margevičiūtė, 2012) defined case study research as an investigation of 

a single or multiple cases intended to capture the complexity of the object of study. A 

qualitative case study design was chosen for this study because the researcher wanted 

to understand the experience of the research subjects and also develop rich  descriptions 

of the case. The case study of the REEWF project in Ward 18 enabled the researcher to 

understand the real-life phenomenon of the project beneficiaries under their natural 

conditions. The researcher opted for the case study design because the nature of the 

research was a bounded system and, in this case, it was the REEWF project in Ward 18 

of Matobo district. The qualitative nature of the research and the selection of a single case 

study design allowed the researcher flexibility throughout the research. 



32 
 

The study delimited the area of study and focused on Ward 18 in the case of this research.  

The next paragraph justifies the use of a single case study and a qualitative approach to 

the study to examine the role of community participation in process evaluation of food 

security projects. 

Justification of Ward 18 as a single case study 

The researcher wanted to suit the case under study and the research questions. The FPC 

REEWF project was the case which the study focused on. The study was concentrated 

in Ward 18 and studied holistically in its own entirety. In choosing a single case study the 

researcher wanted to concentrate the limited resources in one place and do justice to the 

investigation. Qualitative data collection requires time and resources and large volumes 

of data which are difficult to analyse were generated in this qualitative research. Ward 18 

became a centre of focus taking into account that it was located where the road network 

was better and FPC had their interventions concentrated in that particular ward.  Multiple 

case studies consume a lot of resources. The researcher was self-funding the study 

hence it was going to be very costly to conduct a multiple case study design. The following 

section discusses why the researcher combined qualitative research with a case study 

design.  

3.3 Research tools and their application 

Data collection tools used in the research were the individual interview guides, focus 

group discussion guides and the key informant guides. The interview guides for the 

research were all unstructured in order to collect as much qualitative data as possible. 

These questionnaires provided the researcher with adequate room to explore the 

research in detail and collect rich qualitative data.  The data collection tools are attached 

as appendices at the end of this report as follows: Appendix I (individual interview guide), 

Appendix II (key informant interview guide) and Appendix III (focus group discussion 

guide). 

Unstructured interviews were interactive in nature during the data collection process. 

These interviews collected large volumes of qualitative data. The conversation was free 

flowing between the researcher and the respondents and the questions were open en ded. 



33 
 

The respondent led the discussion and the researcher followed up issues as they arose 

through probing further. The following section discusses the researchers experience 

during the use of individual interviews in data collection. 

3.3.1 Individual interviews 

The researcher used individual interviews to collect in -depth data from individuals about 

their experiences. Individual interviews allowed the researcher to meet the respondents 

face to face and interact with them at individual level. Each interviewed individual was 

interviewed at the comfort of his/her household. During the interview the researcher learnt 

a lot about the respondent’s answers to the questions. Qualitative research requires in-

depth information and when the respondents were interviewed at th eir homes, they 

appeared relaxed and willing to engage more in the discussion.  

Advantages of individual in-depth interviews 

The researcher gathered that the interviews concentrated on the matter at hand and the 

interviewer and the respondent talked, responded and reflected. The interviews appeared 

to be focused, deeper and contained more detail when conducted at individual level. 

Although the questions were unstructured the researcher and the respondents took turns 

to speak and there was attentive listening among the researcher and the respondent. 

There was good acknowledgement of what each individual was saying. Individual in-

depth interviews allowed the researcher to understand his own deeper self and see the 

world in the respondent’s own perspective. Non -verbal communication was made clear 

during the individual interviews. Individual interviews indicated that the researcher and 

the respondent have heard each other either non-verbally by nodding or verbally by 

asking for clarity. 

During the individual interviews the researcher and the respondents took turns to speak 

and when one was through, they would indicate to each other. Wrap up statements were 

used to indicate when one was through with the conversation. The researcher would wait 

a bit before continuing in order to give the respondent a chance to reflect on the thoughts. 

The researcher would pose the question and facilitated the discussion, going through 

stages by asking specific questions and then urged the respondent to answer in depth 



34 
 

and at length.  The researcher observed that recording was easy during individual in-

depth interviews as there was minimal disturbance from other individuals.  

During individual interviews the researcher noticed that it was not difficult to create a 

natural environment with the respondent. The researcher would start with the overall 

climatic or weather conditions or simple crack a joke to make the respondent feel  secure 

and get into the interview mood.  

The researcher would acknowledge the knowledge the respondent had to participate in 

the interview. This allowed the respondent to gain confidence and competence in 

responding. At individual interview level it was important for the researcher to show keen 

interest in listening to what the respondent was saying. This was a good tone for the 

follow-up question that usually depicts that the researcher had understood or not 

understood the answer to the first question. Probing and follow-up questions were 

explored in detail during individual interviews.  

The interviewer started with the most difficult questions to the least difficult to facilitate the 

easy flow of the conversation. After concluding the interview, the respondents were free 

to ask questions or clarity about the interview. The respondents appeared to be 

comfortable asking the researcher questions at individual level unlike during the focus 

group discussions that are discussed in the coming sections. On average each individual 

interview took about one and a half hours. 

Challenges encountered during individual interviews 

There were a few challenges experienced by the researcher during the conducting of 

individual interviews. The research was a qualitative study and was constructivist in 

nature. Purposive selection was used to identify the respondents who were part of the 

FPC REEWF project in Ward 18. These individuals were then interviewed until a certain 

level of saturation was reached. The individual interviews as stated before in this chapter 

took twenty-one days to complete and between two and three interviews were conducted 

per day. Individual interview respondents did not answer all the questions as some 

questions did not apply especially if the individual has answered ‘No’ to the previous 

question. The other days were covered for revisits for those respondents who were not 



35 
 

present at the first visit. Few respondents were covered per day to give the researcher 

time to clean and analyse the data collected for each particular day so that the researcher 

was going to be able to notice if he was now collecting similar data in the following 

interviews (saturation).  

This posed a challenge of excessive travelling to the researcher who would move 

household by household to interview individuals. When interviewing respondents to a 

level of saturation it was difficult to make an appointment with an individual because it 

was never known how much time the researcher will spend at each household. Qualitative 

data collection included a lot of probing and discussion. Hence the researcher simply 

informed the community leadership that he will be collecting data from the ward at 

particular dates and places. The area under the study was a hilly area and some 

households were difficult to access using shorter routes so the researcher had to use 

longer routes to access them. 

The other challenge with the individual in-depth interviews was that the researcher would 

arrive and find no one at home and if that person was deemed to be have important 

knowledge about the research the researcher would do a re-visit thereby impacting more 

on time and resources. Sometimes the researcher would arrive at home and find that the 

individual at home does not have adequate knowledge about the project or the 

respondents were children who could not be interviewed for the research. This led to the 

data collection taking longer than expected. Between two and three interviews were 

conducted each day starting at 0800 hours in the morning to 1200hrs. The rest of the day 

was reserved for data cleaning and initial analysis. As previously stated, the individual 

interviews took 21 days to complete. It was possible to complete three interviews per day 

if all the respondents were being found at home and there were no repeat visits The 

following section focuses on the use of focus group discussion as a data col lection 

method used to collect qualitative data. 

3.3.2 Focus group discussions 

Focus group discussions (FDGs) were used by this researcher to collect qualitative data 

in Ward 18. These were small groups of people that were assembled to informally discuss 

the specific topical questions pertaining of the study. These groups were interviewed 



36 
 

using a focus group discussion guide to collect data the FGDs were conducted at local 

village centres. This was done in order to minimise the distance travelled by each member 

of the group to the discussion centre. The Village Heads organised the meetings for the 

study. The researcher facilitated the discussions and made sure each participant was 

accorded an equal opportunity to participate. This kept the discussions focu sed on the 

main theme of the study. The questions were unstructured and explored and created 

deep discussions between the researcher and respondents on particular topics during the 

research. Four groups were interviewed over a period of four days. A day was reserved 

for each group and on average the discussions took between one and a half hours to two 

hours. These were conducted in the morning between 0800 hours and 1000 hours. The 

rest of the day was reserved for data cleaning and initial analysis to cater for data 

saturation in the following interviews.   The following section discuss the strength and 

limitations observed by the researcher during the study pertaining to focus group 

discussions. 

Advantages of focus group discussions 

During focus group discussions the researcher observed that issues under discussion 

were explored in greater depth. The groups were homogenous groups of people who 

were part of the FPC REEWF project. The REEWF project had 75% women and 25% 

men hence the groups comprised of more women than men. There was positive 

exchange of ideas and group participants would thoroughly dwell on a particular issue if 

they feel it was an issue of importance with regards to a particular topic. 

There was greater probing of issues of interest in focus group discussions. Individual 

interviews were conducted earlier than focus group discussions. Focus group discussions 

were then used as a platform to complement data collected through individual interviews. 

This was done through triangulation of the data to find interrelationships and linkages 

within the data. 

The researcher observed that respondents tend to participate fully in FDGs if they 

observe others participating. Some information that the individuals felt was not suitable 

to be revealed to the researcher during individual interviews was discussed during FDGs. 



37 
 

It was noted by this researcher that information pertaining to the implementing 

organisation, FPC was only accessed through FDGs.  

There was a lot of generation of new ideas about community participation and process 

evaluation in FGDs. There was a range of opinion about community participation in 

process evaluation of food security projects in Ward 18.  During individual interviews 

some respondents were not quite sure about the researcher and the motive behind the 

study even though it was clearly explained to them. But when they observed almost the 

same questions administered to a group of other respondents from the same area, they 

started expressing confidence in the study and the researcher himself. The researcher 

advised the group members before the start of the discussions that the questions they 

were going to be asked were the same questions that were asked to the individual project 

participants and they were free to express their views and opinions. Since some 

respondents were not comfortable with writing, FDGs availed an opportunity for such 

respondents to express themselves verbally. The next section highlights the limitations of 

FGDs observed by the researcher during the study. 

Limitations of FGDs  

There was a high degree of moderation by the researcher in FGDs. Large volumes of 

data were received and it required a very skilled researcher to moderate and keep the 

group on track. Group participants should be carefully selected to avoid selecting 

members of the same families, religion or political party. Ward 18 is under an opposition  

party councillor politically hence for the researcher to conduct FGDs he needed to be 

wary of keeping discussions within the limit of the study and avoid political sentiments.  

In summary FGDs generated rich data through interactive discussions although if not 

conducted well they can deviate from real important issues and lead to a large volume of 

data that are difficult to analyse. The following section discusses the use of key informant 

interviews as a method of data collection. 

3.3.3 Key informant Interviews 

Key informant interviews were used to collect data from the district stakeholders in 

Matobo district. These interviews were conducted in order to get stakeholder perspectives 



38 
 

with regards to community participation in process evaluation of humanitarian food 

security projects in the district. Strengths and limitations of key informant interviews