Indicators of Vitality and Its Evaluation
Page 22 of 36
Indicators
An indicator is a unit of information–quantitative or qualitative–that is used to give an approximate measure of changing circumstances. An indicator is not the reality itself, but rather a sign of the observed trend (e.g. a rate of assimilation, the majority/minority ratio, the degree of confidence in leaders, etc.). Monica Heller warns against the risk of mistaking the one for the other: "The measures of linguistic vitality used fall into the same trap of reducing to quantifiable and hence unified variables, social processes that are not objects. [...] One cannot simply take for granted what the role is of the home, of schooling, employment or any other area of activity without going to see it in the field. One cannot even assume that these areas really act separately from each other" (Heller, 2002: 181).
Indicators can nevertheless be used for a variety of ends, two of which are systematically used by community actors: indicators to think through and evaluate strategically the development of the community; and the very different indicators that measure formal actions and account for them, in other words, the performance indicators required by the funding agencies.
Communities that want to take charge of their own development are aware of the importance of using indicators to compile periodic diagnoses of their situation, identify the strategic choices to be implemented in order to develop and progressively evaluate the results obtained. There are a number of exemplary practices in this regard that can be listed: community economic development movements (Auspos and Kubisch, 2004; Lewis and Lockhart, 2002; Simpson and Cala, 2001), social economy movements (Bouchard, 2003; Franke, 2005), community groups (Gaudreau and Lacelle, 1999), Vibrant Communities (Torjman and Leviten-Reid, 2004), Resilient Communities (Centre for Community Entreprise, 2000), durable communities (Hart, 1999) and non-governmental international development organizations (Roche, 1999; Oakley and Clayton, 2000).
Some approaches use indicators in innovative ways. The methodology of outcome mapping used by the International Development Research Centre is a participatory and empowering way of evaluating, by means of concentric circles, the changes brought about by an action or a program (Earl et al., 2002). This methodology is applied over the long term and seeks to attribute the results observed to a conjunction of factors rather than to linear causality. It uses markers of progress as indicators, seeking to identify the processes of change and to track them. The indicators measure:
- what people expect to see, i.e. changes that are relatively easy to achieve;
- what people wish to see, i.e. an active attitude towards learning and participation; and
- what people would like to see in an ideal world, i.e. a genuine transformation over the longer term.
Cumulative experience and research have established a number of standards to ensure the effectiveness of indicators. These should be:
- relevant in relation to the desired objectives;
- valid, i.e. a genuine reflection of what is being measured;
- intelligible to the parties involved;
- reliable, i.e. measurable by means of objective data that can be interpreted without ambiguity;
- comparative in the long term and between units of the same type;
- complete, both objective (facts) and subjective (perceptions); and
- feasible, i.e. commensurate with the resources that can be devoted to the exercise over the long term.
Illustrated on next page are various sets of indicators that have been used either for OLMCs or for other types of community.
