Reimagining MEL: Co-Designing with the Capability Approach

by James Lever

As part of my PhD research, I am inviting SfD organisations to co-design an MEL approach grounded in the CA. Building on an initial model developed through prior collaboration with a SfD organisation, this next phase offers an opportunity to refine and expand this work.

MEL is a critical part of any SfD initiative, yet a problem with many extant approaches in the sector is that they fail to account for the nuanced and diverse experiences of programme beneficiaries (Haudenhuyse and Debognies, 2022). Instead, they tend to rely on predetermined indicators, linear models of change, and narrow interpretations of success. At their core, conventional approaches attempt to establish causal chains, aiming to measure and prove what a programme has ‘done’ to a participant. However, development rarely unfolds in such neat, predictable ways. Unintended and even unwanted outcomes are inevitable. Such approaches are often ill-equipped to capture complexity, leaving practitioners without the insights needed to adapt their programmes meaningfully to the lived realities of those they aim to support. They also risk suppressing local knowledge and perpetuating deficit-reduction models of development (Nols, et al., 2017). 

The desire for certainty in measurement can reduce MEL to a mere box-ticking exercise (Levermore, 2011), discourage honest reflection and exclude stories that do not fit align with neat narratives. When complexity is taken seriously, evaluators should assume more humility in making assured declarations (Mowles, 2014). They must move away from the idea of control and prediction, and toward ongoing, reflective inquiry into processes of change. 

Emphasising the ‘L’ in MEL (Learning)

An alternative vision for MEL lies in shifting the focus from proving outcomes to fostering deeper understanding. Foregrounding learning over measurement may encourage evaluators to adopt more holistic approaches that consider the diversity of lived experiences at play. MEL can no longer be thought of as a top-down accountability tool, but rather as a vital, generative part of the development process. As Kelly (2021) has noted, stories are often dismissed within MEL circles as anecdotal and are therefore perceived as less valuable. However, these narratives can offer rich insights into how programmes are understood and experienced. They reveal opportunities to recalibrate programmes so they reflect participants’ own definitions of success, rather than externally imposed ones.

One promising way SfD organisations can move toward new forms of MEL is by drawing on the CA. The CA is a normative and evaluative framework, which was first developed by the economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen (1999). There is a growing body of work linking the CA and SfD, consisting of both theoretical endorsements and empirical applications. For instance, Rossi and Jeanes (2018) suggest that the CA can help us rethink what ‘success’ means, while Svensson and Levine (2017) highlight its adaptability across diverse SfD contexts. However, its full potential as a foundation for MEL has yet to be realised and practical guidance regarding its implementation is limited. 

The CA proposes that development should focus on expanding the freedom of individuals to be or do whatever it is that they value (Robeyns, 2005). In recognising the diversity in what people value, the CA is inherently complexity-aware. It challenges us to shift the focus of evaluation from outcomes predefined by funders or programme designers to what genuinely matters to participants. It also acknowledges that opportunities are shaped by a wide range of interwoven factors. As such, it asks us to reflect on context and consider multiple explanations for change. 

Despite the benefits its adoption in MEL circles may bring, there remains a lack of tools related to how it can be meaningfully embedded within the day-to-day realities of SfD organisations. This is where you can help! 

Co-designing a novel approach 

I am seeking an SfD organisation interested in co-designing a practical, grounded MEL approach that is theoretically inspired but responsive to organisational realities. This collaboration will build on an existing foundation to shape an approach that appreciates complexity, prioritises learning, and places importance on individual agency. 

The process will explore questions such as: 

• How can we better understand what participants genuinely value?
• What tools and methods are best suited to capture unintended outcomes?
• How can reflection and learning become embedded and meaningful? 

If your organisation is interested in being part of this process, I would really appreciate your involvement. Whether you are already exploring alternatives to conventional MEL, or simply curious about what a capability-informed approach might look like in practice, I am eager to connect and learn together. 

While this vision is ambitious, I recognise that SfD organisations operate within a broader neoliberal and audit culture context, which often prioritises measurability and quantification (Shore and Wright, 2024). St. Croix and Doherty (2024) have argued that this context cultivates an environment of insecurity, decreasing the likelihood of MEL being used as a learning tool. Although these forces should be resisted, doing so is not always a feasible option for many SfD initiatives that rely on funding tied to conventional reporting requirements. As such, any MEL approach developed through this collaboration will carefully consider how to strike a balance between organisational realities and remaining committed to the complexity of participants’ lived experiences and promoting meaningful learning. 

Please get in touch to start the conversation by contacting me on [email protected] or via my sportanddev profile (registration required to view full profile - register here).

References 

Haudenhuyse, R., & Debognies, P. (2021). Let’s get realistic: why ‘what works’ will probably not work in evaluative sport research. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 14(2), pp. 369–379. 

Kelly, L.M. (2021). Evaluation in small development non-profits: Deadends, victories, and alternative routes. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Levermore, R. (2011). Evaluating sport-for-development: Approaches and critical issues. Progress in Development Studies, 11(4), pp. 339-353.  

Mowles, C. (2014). Complex, but not quite complex enough: The turn to the complexity sciences in evaluation scholarship. Evaluation, 20(2), pp. 160-175.  

Nols, Z., Haudenhuyse, R., & Theeboom, M. (2017). Urban Sport-for-Development Initiatives and Young People in Socially Vulnerable Situations: Investigating the ‘Deficit Model’. Sport for Social Inclusion: Questioning Policy, Practice and Research, 5(2), pp. 210-222. 

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), pp.93-117.  

Rossi, T., & Jeanes, R. (2018). Is sport for development already an anachronism in the age of austerity or can it be a space of hope? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 10(1), pp. 185–201. 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf. 

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2024). Audit culture: How indicators and rankings are reshaping the world. London: Pluto Press. 

Svensson, P.G., & Levine, J. (2017). Rethinking sport for development and peace: The capability approach. Sport in Society, 20(7), pp. 905-923. 

St Croix, T. & Doherty, L. (2024). ‘Capturing the magic': grassroots perspectives on evaluating open youth work. Journal of Youth Studies, 27(4), pp. 486-502.