Evaluation on Study Circle Methodology in We Effect Programmes in Southern Africa, Focusing on Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe: We Effect

Deadline: 14 May 2021

1. Introduction

We Effect is a Swedish development organisation with a Regional Office in Southern Africa and Country Offices in Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It supports development powered by people who themselves live in poverty and works with local member-based organisations. We Effect’s vision is a sustainable and just world free of poverty. To succeed, it has to start by changing the situation for the most vulnerable – women and girls, who constitute 70% of those living in poverty. To achieve gender equality, We Effect’s global and regional strategies Equality First(2017 - 2021) prescribes gender equality as the core of all We Effect work. In 2020, We Effect adopted the Interim Strategy (2020-2021) to respond to the challenges posed by the Corona Virus 2019 (Covid-19). The Interim Strategy with a focus on the right to food, complements the Equality First and aims at contributing to a better and more sustainable future.

The We Effect strategies are implemented through programmes designed in close collaboration with local partner organisations. We Effect has been using the study circle methodology as an extension tool through self-learning by the rights’ holders with its implementing partners for more than two decades now. In 2014, an evaluation of the Study Circle methodology was commissioned in Southern Africa, whose aim was to ascertain how the methodology works, its strengths and weaknesses regarding improving the livelihoods of the target group. In 2020, an internal evaluation of the study circle methodology under the Extension Training for Rural Agriculture (EXTRA) project was conducted in Zimbabwe to ascertain its effectiveness, impact, efficiency and its comparison and compatibility with other extension methods.

The findings of the evaluations revealed that the study circle materials were highly appreciated by study circle participants. However, study circle participants interviewed requested for materials to be more accessible in terms of vernacular languages, simpler formats, and media to complement the books, booklets, and specific case studies from the community. At the grassroot level, there was none or very limited overview of the study circle materials available, which meant that participants did not know what to ask for.