PEACEW RKS

Evaluating media interventionS 

in conflict countries

toward developing common principles and a

community of practice

Amelia Arsenault, Sheldon Himelfarb, 

and Susan Abbott

[ [

PW77_cover3a.indd 1 10/3/11 1:51:0
About the Repo

rt

The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Penn-

sylvania, Fondation Hirondelle, Internews Network, the United States 

Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the Center of Innovation for 

Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding at the United States Institute of 

Peace commissioned this report following a five-day multistakeholder 

meeting of donors, implementers, and academics on how to better 

evaluate media’s impact in ameliorating conflict, at the Caux Conference Center in Switzerland. The report both reviews the state of the 

art in evaluating media interventions in conflict and outlines the Caux 

Guiding Principles (hereinafter, Caux Principles) for improving the 

evaluation process. It stresses effective evaluation as a critical step 

forward for using the media in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

Cover image—© Journalist in DRC (photo: Lâm 

Duc Hiên/Fondation Hirondelle)

Table of contents image—© Emrys Schoemaker. 

Used with permission.

The views expressed in this report are those of the 

authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the 

views of the United States Institute of Peace, and 

do not represent official positions of the United 

States Government.

United States Institute of Peace 

2301 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20037

Phone: 202.457.1700 

Fax: 202.429.6063 

E-mail: usip_requests@usip.org 

Web: www.usip.org

Peaceworks No. 77 

First published 2011

© 2011 by the United States Institute of Peace About the Authors

Amelia Arsenault is an assistant professor of communication at 

Georgia State University, and the Media and Democracy Research 

fellow at the Center for Global Communication Studies at the 

Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. 

Sheldon Himelfarb directs the USIP Center of Innovation for Media, 

Conflict, and Peacebuilding. He has managed peacebuilding 

programs in numerous conflicts, including in Bosnia, Iraq, Angola, 

Liberia, Macedonia, and Burundi, and received the Capital Area 

Peacemaker Award from American University. Susan Abbott, deputy 

director of program development at Internews Network, works with 

Internews programs worldwide on monitoring and evaluation and on 

research and learning. Abbott was previously associate director of the 

Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School 

for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Before that, she was 

a Media Development Division program officer at the International 

Research and Exchanges Board in Washington, D.C.

1

PW77_cover3a.indd 2 10/3/11 1:51:0
Peaceworks • October 2011 • no. 77

CONTENTS

[ The ability to impart and share information in real 

time, twenty-four hours a day, both globally and locally 

via multiple communication channels, has expanded 

the media’s role in precipitating, ameliorating, and 

discouraging conflict. ]

Introduction ... 5

Evaluation Under Pressure ... 8

Roadblocks to Improved Evaluation ... 13

The Caux Principles ... 23

Conclusions and Future Directions ... 28

Appendices ... 30

PW77_interior_3a.indd 1 9/30/11 9:51:3
PW77_interior_3a.indd 2 9/30/11 9:51:3
 3

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

Summary

■ Recognizing media’s heightened importance in peacebuilding, governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), multilateral organizations, broadcasters, and 

community activists have expanded their efforts in using the media to prevent, manage, 

and reconcile conflicts.

■ Poorly designed media interventions, no matter how well intentioned, may exacerbate 

tensions and undermine peacebuilding efforts.

■ In the face of the global economic downturn, policymakers and politicians no longer have 

the economic or political capital to fund projects without evidence of their efficacy. As a 

consequence, implementers and donor organizations alike are under increased pressure to 

demonstrate the utility of the programs they produce or fund.

■ Improving and expanding evaluation of current and future projects is essential because 

evaluation provides critical evidence that can inform future programs and better direct 

donors and policymakers in the judicious, economical allocation of funding and policy.

■ A wide array of media development practitioners, donors, international broadcasters, and 

methodologists—all with extensive experience working in media initiatives in conflict 

environments—met in Caux, Switzerland, in December 2010, to establish the Caux 

Guiding Principles, whose full text is in this report.

■ Based on a careful appraisal of the current status of monitoring and evaluating media 

interventions in conflict countries, the Caux Principles outline measures that stakeholders can take to improve evaluation.

■ The Caux Principles urge those working in media and conflict initiatives to take several 

concrete steps to improve evaluation. These include enabling better collaboration 

between donors and implementers, expanding financial support for evaluation, encouraging realistic and honest assessments of project successes and failures, designing flexible 

evaluation plans that are sensitive to changing conditions on the ground, and engaging 

with local researchers.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 3 9/30/11 9:51:3
PW77_interior_3a.indd 4 9/30/11 9:51:3
 5

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

Introduction

During 2010, an estimated 363 armed conflicts took place around the world.2 These conflicts 

are not uniform and range from all-out interstate wars to low-intensity conflicts over resources 

or succession. The World Bank calculates that conflict in some way affects more than 45 countries and the lives of more than 500 million individuals. In these environments, access to information can often make the difference between life and death. How do you get a particular 

message to the most people possible? Increasingly, the answer is through the media. The ability 

to impart and share information in real time, twenty-four hours a day, both globally and locally 

via multiple communication channels, has expanded the media’s role in precipitating, ameliorating, and discouraging conflict.3

Media platforms provide a platform for dialogue among disagreeing parties, and a critical 

source for information about available services and potential threats. For example, in 2006–09, 

every day at eight a.m. and eight p.m., thirteen Sudanese journalists broadcast Darfur Lifeline 

via shortwave radio.4 The one-hour program featured critical information on health and human services available for displaced persons in Darfur. UNICEF estimates that the number 

of people participating in National Immunization Day doubled as a result of these broadcasts. In the postconflict phase, the media can prove invaluable to the peacebuilding process by 

publicizing the terms of peace settlements, educating and informing citizens about elections, 

and providing an outlet for discussion and debate about the original causes of the conflict. 

Conversely, when misappropriated, the media may intensify conflict and further encourage 

violence, instability, and fragmentation, as was the case in the 1990s when Slobodan Milošević 

nationalized the most popular media outlets in Yugoslavia and used them as a platform to call 

for ethnic nationalism and violence.5

Recognizing media’s heightened importance in conflict environments, governmental organizations, NGOs, multilateral organizations, broadcasters, and community activists have 

expanded their efforts to use the media to prevent, manage, and reconcile conflicts. Just as 

conflict environments are heterogeneous, so, too, are these media interventions. They vary from 

context to context and are differentiated by function (e.g., peacebuilding, election monitoring, 

nation building), form (e.g., radio, television, new media), and audience. Media programs include establishing or supporting radio and television stations, conducting press and regulatory 

training, international broadcasting efforts, and other issue-specific media outreach initiatives. 

NGOs such as Internews Network (U.S.A.), IREX (U.S.A.), Press Now (Netherlands), and 

Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland) work in countries such as Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan 

to strengthen existing independent media organizations or build new ones, with an eye toward 

improving the media’s ability to serve as information providers and political and social watchdogs. Organizations such as Search for Common Ground and BBC World Service Trust work 

with local partners to produce culturally sensitive radio and television programs aimed at developing collaborative problem solving and mutual understanding. International broadcasters 

such as Voice of America, BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, and France 24 seek to ensure 

the free flow of information across national borders and promote cross-cultural understanding 

between the target country and the broadcasting country. 

But even the best-intentioned media interventions, if poorly designed, may exacerbate tensions and undermine peacebuilding efforts. In the immediate aftermath of the war in Yugoslavia, for instance, the UN produced a series of peace and reconciliation programs. As Jeffrey 

Heyman, former head of United Nations Radio Yugoslavia, recounts, “Few stations would 

take the risk playing such programmes. Those that did air them often used any slight accent, 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 5 9/30/11 9:51:3
6 

PEACEWORKS 77

6

mistake or bias (it was impossible for local journalists to be unbiased during the war) to their 

advantage—a situation that made the UN an accomplice in the propaganda war. We finally 

stopped the programmes, no longer certain of the integrity of the message.”6

In light of past missteps, such as those cited by Heyman, and the broadening size and scope 

of media-related activities in conflict environments, the international community has turned 

greater attention toward determining the impact and efficacy of media initiatives in conflict 

countries. Financial constraints imposed by the global economic downturn, and related calls 

for aid effectiveness, have also intensified pressure on implementers and donor organizations 

around the world to demonstrate the utility of the programs they produce or fund.7

Many of the roadblocks and the solutions to improved evaluation discussed in this report 

are not unique to the community of stakeholders working in media and conflict. Actors 

across the international development spectrum are under similar pressure to strengthen evaluation. But those working in media in conflict environments face a distinct set of challenges 

to providing evidence-based support for program effectiveness. These include collapsed 

timelines, quickly shifting conditions, and the frequent inability of researchers to travel into 

the areas covered by the media interventions they are assigned to evaluate, to name but a few. 

And the biggest, most daunting challenge, against which all others pale, is that the vast array 

of factors that determine conflict (and, conversely, peace) make it extremely hard to isolate 

the impact of a specific media intervention on the prevailing state of affairs. In recognition 

of these challenges, in December 2010, thirty-four people representing thirty different organizations working in media in conflict countries spent five days at the Caux Conference 

Center in Switzerland, grappling with ways to improve current evaluation practices. This 

workshop evolved out of a shared desire to improve evaluation techniques, and a common 

belief that the first step to improvement lay in establishing the foundations for a community 

of practice. The conveners also shared a common frustration: while media conferences commonly feature panels on evaluation, the topic is so complex that they rarely produce concrete 

recommendations. Therefore, the conveners agreed that the Caux Workshop would be materially different in providing a five-day forum for in-depth consideration of methodology, 

policy, and practical implementation. 

This report draws heavily on the discussions and research shared at the Caux Workshop. It 

has three principal functions. First, to chart a new way forward, it provides a careful appraisal 

of the current status of monitoring and evaluating media interventions in conflict countries. 

Second, the report represents a call to action for policymakers and practitioners with interests 

in media in conflict environments, by showing how these stakeholders can provide better support for evaluation. It further shows how better evaluation benefits policymakers and program 

implementers by encouraging accountability and building knowledge about how media can 

contribute to stabilization and peacemaking. Improved evaluations create more realistic expectations about what media interventions can and cannot achieve. Primed with more realistic 

expectations, funding organizations can, in turn, more clearly define project goals at the level of 

requests for proposals, benefitting future evaluations and future projects (see figure 1).

Third, this report provides support for evaluators and methodologists working in conflict 

environments, by outlining guiding principles for evaluation in conflict countries. These guiding principles, referred to as the Caux Principles (detailed on pages 23–28), are perhaps most 

useful for those working in monitoring and evaluation (M & E), while the sections leading 

up to them are better framed for policymakers and implementers wanting to understand the 

challenges and importance of evaluating media’s role in conflict.8

Those working in media 

in conflict environments 

face . . . collapsed 

timelines, quickly shifting 

conditions, and the 

frequent inability of 

researchers to travel into 

the areas covered by the 

media interventions they 

are assigned to evaluate.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 6 9/30/11 9:51:3
 7

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

Media’s diverse roles in conflict are listed below: 

■ Citizen journalism initiatives give people without professional journalism training 

Web-based or mobile tools to create, augment, or fact-check traditional media on their 

own or in collaboration with others. These initiatives are critical in conflict areas where 

traditional media are biased or lack resources.

■ Crowdsourcing technologies are increasingly popular in conflict environments. 

Crowdsourcing initiatives invite citizens to use geo-mapping, blogging, Short Messaging 

Services, or other Web-based technologies to collect and share information about such 

issues as election fraud, violence, and humanitarian crises.

■ International broadcasting typically refers to radio or television (but also, increasingly, 

Internet) content directed at foreign rather than domestic audiences. Most international 

broadcasters are government funded. In conflict situations, these broadcasts may provide 

critical sources of information when domestic information sources are silenced or absent. In 

pre-conflict situations, they may serve as platforms for practicing preventive diplomacy.

■ Media monitoring involves surveying media for evidence of destructive content such as 

incitement to violence or extremism. Monitoring may provide early warning of impending conflicts or the reescalation of old ones. 

■ Media professionalization programs are designed to encourage media independence, 

objectivity, and improved standards in editing and reporting. These efforts include 

journalist training, editorial training, and promoting the use of diverse sources. 

■ Peace, preventive, and conflict-sensitive journalism training is aimed at building 

journalists’ awareness about the potentially pivotal role they can play in mediating or 

exacerbating conflict. Such initiatives entail working with journalists to find a means of 

reporting that balances between two disparate positions or emphasizes peacekeeping 

goals over objectivity.

■ Promoting an enabling environment includes programs that promote media law and 

regulations that inhibit incitement to violence, government monopoly over communication platforms, and censorship. 

Realistic

Expectations

Improved

Project

Planning

Improved

Evaluations

Clearly

Defined

Goals

Figure 1. The Importance of Realistic Expectations

PW77_interior_3a.indd 7 9/30/11 9:51:3
8 

PEACEWORKS 77

■ Social marketing or media-for-development programs use existing media outlets to 

convey messages about specific peacebuilding issues through such vehicles as radio dramas, public service announcements, and roundtable talk shows. 

Evaluation under Pressure

The Arab Spring upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011 has prompted 

calls for more rigorous research into the current and potential roles that media—and, increasingly, new media—can play in conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Protesters in 

countries across the region relied to varying degrees on social media to organize protests 

against incumbent regimes and leveraged international news organizations such as Al Jazeera 

English to solicit international support. Recognizing the power of the media, those in power 

made asserting control over media platforms a top priority. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak shut down all access to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google in the first few days 

of the protests before essentially shutting down the Internet on January 28. Libyan leader 

Muammar Gaddafi’s security forces detained journalists, jammed the frequencies of international broadcasters such as Al Jazeera and Alhurra, and blocked all Internet traffic in and out 

of the country.9

 In response, the international community redirected funds toward programs 

aimed at strengthening media in the Middle East–North Africa region, to provide conduits 

between governing bodies and potential voters, information sources for those needing medical or humanitarian aid, and platforms for discussion and debate on how to structure and 

implement reforms.10 With Egypt and Tunisia moving toward democratic reform, fighting 

still engulfing Libya, and resolution still unclear in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen, the final outcomes of the Arab Spring remain uncertain. While there is consensus that the media played 

and will continue to play a role, considerable debate surrounds precisely what credit properly 

goes to the media compared with other factors in precipitating this wave of political unrest.11

Most importantly for stakeholders involved in media-related activities in conflict environments, there is equal disagreement about what role the media can play in helping Egypt 

and Tunisia reach full democratic transitions, ameliorating civil war in Libya, and avoiding 

full-blown conflicts in Bahrain, Yemen, and other countries under stress across the region. 

As the policy community looks backward at the still ongoing transformations, and forward 

toward the implementation of new programs and reforms, at the forefront are calls for better 

evaluation of media’s role in economic, political, and social transition; empowerment of youth 

and women; and conflict prevention and resolution. These are three areas that donors often 

highlight as major priorities.

The concern over better understanding the role of media (particularly of media programs 

implemented by international funders) builds on a preexisting movement within the international development community for improved evaluation of all forms of international interventions.12 In the face of broader calls for government accountability and overall belt tightening 

(largely in response to the global economic downturn), both private and public funding agencies around the world are under increased pressure from policymakers, government auditors, 

and other regulatory bodies to demonstrate the value of the programs they fund. In response, 

funding agencies are instituting more stringent evaluation requirements on their implementer 

partners. This focus on evaluation gained strength in the wake of the 2005 Paris Declaration 

for Aid Effectiveness, an international agreement signed by more than 100 government ministers, heads of agencies, and other senior officials. The declaration committed signatories to 

make strides toward harmonizing, aligning, and managing international aid with a set of monMuammar Gaddafi’s 

security forces detained 

journalists, jammed 

the frequencies 

of international 

broadcasters such as 

Al Jazeera and Alhurra, 

and blocked all Internet 

traffic in and out of 

the country.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 8 9/30/11 9:51:3
 9

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

itorable actions and indicators, especially in conflict areas.13 In October 2010, the Australian 

Agency for International Development (AusAID), the UK’s Department for International 

Development (DFID), and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation announced a 

joint initiative to promote systematic reviews to strengthen the international community’s capacity to enact policies based on solid evidence.14 On January 19, 2011, a little over a month 

after the close of the Caux Workshop, Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), announced a new evaluation policy encouraging every major 

USAID-funded project to use independent third-party evaluators, include counterfactuals, 

and release the results of the evaluations within three months of project completion.15 Consequently, methodologists and M & E professionals have turned their attention to charting the 

best ways forward and sharing evaluation resources (see box 1). 

Still, very few of these resources are specific to conflict environments, and far fewer yet address issues facing the evaluation of media-and-conflict initiatives. While people working in 

media in conflict scenarios experience pressures similar to those working in nonmedia-related 

interventions (such as health and safety and security promotion), to improve the evaluation 

components of their programs, they face a special set of challenges. These include lack of control over the research environment, rapid shifts in international public and donor attention, 

difficulties in measuring the causal impact of media interventions, unreliable data about media 

usage, heterogeneity of conflict environments, shifting objectives according to changes in conflict, and media’s multiple roles in conflict.

Box 1. Monitoring and Evaluation Resources

Here are some of the databases and knowledge-sharing sites aggregating M & E 

publications and methodologies across development sectors, including media and 

communication:

■ African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results, www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/

page/resource-center

■ Australian Development Gateway, www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/op/preview/sectors/

dpe/page718.html

■ Independent Evaluation at Asian Development Bank, www.adb.org/evaluation/

■ OECD-DAC Evaluation Resource Centre, www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_35038640_35039563_

1_1_1_1_1,00.html

■ Search For Common Ground Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Resources, www.sfcg.org/ 

programmes/ilt/dme_home.html

■ United Nations Evaluation Group, www.uneval.org/

■ USAID, www.usaid.gov/policy/evalweb/evaluation_resources.html

■ World Bank Institute, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/0,,contentMDK:203960

74~pagePK:209023~piPK:335094~theSitePK:213799,00.html

■ Rick Davies, an independent M & E consultant, also maintains the M & E developments newsletter 

Monitoring and Evaluation News, http://mande.co.uk/

Journals dedicated to sharing M & E research include the following: 

■ American Journal of Evaluation, http://aje.sagepub.com/

■ Evaluation Exchange, www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange

■ Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, www.uk.sagepub.com/journals/Journal200757

■ Evaluation and Program Planning, www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/593/

description#description

■ Evaluation Review, http://erx.sagepub.com/

■ Journal of Development Effectiveness, www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/19439342.asp

■ New Directions for Evaluation Research and Practice, www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/

productCd-EV.html

PW77_interior_3a.indd 9 9/30/11 9:51:3
10 

PEACEWORKS 77

Lack of Control over the Research Environment 

Ideal research methods are based on a researcher’s ability to do careful planning and assert 

maximum control over the research environment. Research in conflict environments suffers 

from the same political, economic, and social uncertainties that characterize conflict areas in 

general. For example, a recent British National Audit Office report found that security considerations had disrupted the monitoring and evaluation plans of 40 percent of DFID programs 

in fragile states.16 Researchers and program implementers must continually adapt their plans 

in response to unexpected shifts in safety, economic, and social conditions. A carefully detailed 

evaluation plan constructed at the beginning of a project may well prove untenable given rapidly changing on-the-ground conditions. The longer the project’s duration, the more difficult 

it becomes to predict the research environment. 

This unpredictability is particularly acute for media interventions. In times of crisis, the media 

provide critical conduits for information about humanitarian aid, political reform, and peacebuilding, largely because media platforms can reach large populations quickly and efficiently, unencumbered by geography or violence. But because of safety or financial constraints, researchers 

investigating the efficacy of specific media interventions often cannot travel so easily. Moreover, 

because implementers and methodologists are often physically separated from the location of the 

media intervention, they are often less able than those evaluating nonmedia programs to identify 

and predict changes in the research locale. Media programs designed to improve media professionalism suffer from a different but related set of challenges. Journalists trained under one set 

of conditions, for example, may change jobs, adapt reporting habits to shifts in political power, 

or be physically displaced due to violence. Thus, an evaluator seeking to measure the long-term 

outcomes of a specific training exercise may struggle even to locate participants at a later date. 

Rapid Shifts in International Public and Donor Attention

While adapting to physical impediments to field research, those working in conflict environments must often navigate rapid shifts in international public and donor attention, propelled by 

changes in the intensity of the conflict itself or by the presence of new, more pressing crises elsewhere. U.S. government funding for media development in South and Central Asia, for example, 

doubled from $21.7 million in 2009 to $49.8 million in 2010. Conversely, media development 

funding for the Near East region dropped from more than $42 million in 2008 to just under $21 

million in 2010, likely due to the Obama administration’s refocusing from the war in Iraq to the 

war in Afghanistan.17 Upswings in political and public attention to a conflict may cause what 

is often referred to as the “fishbowl effect.”18 Faced with increased public scrutiny and concern 

about loss of life or societal fragmentation, donors and implementers may feel pressured to produce evidence that their actions are having positive results and doing so quickly. This pressure may 

encourage unsystematic and hasty evaluations. Conversely, programs initiated during periods of 

international attention may find their funding streams drying up as donor and public attention 

moves to the next big conflict or crisis. In the face of budget cuts, research is often the first area 

to go. These unpredictable shifts in international engagement present major hurdles to sustained 

improvements in evaluating and learning from past mistakes. 

Measurement Difficulties

Measuring the causal impact of media interventions has its challenges even in the most controlled environments. Communication as an academic discipline evolved out of studies of 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 10 9/30/11 9:51:3
 11

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

propaganda campaigns conducted during the First and Second World Wars. This early work 

ascribed powerful and direct effects to media. This perception of a powerful media propagated 

the first major round of internationally funded media development interventions conducted 

in less-developed countries (including conflict countries) in the 1950s and 1960s.19 But more 

than half a century of research has illustrated that media’s ability to produce change is neither 

straightforward nor self-evident. Researchers of media’s effects generally agree that exposure 

to media programming may affect certain audiences, under certain conditions. Media’s effects 

depend heavily on the specific attributes of the media consumers and on the specific conditions under which they consume media. A number of researchers have documented that in 

times of heightened uncertainty, individuals may increase their dependency on the media.20 At 

the same time, few studies have actually documented direct causal links between media and 

violence, and fewer still have investigated media’s ability to promote peace. The existing studies 

exploring the causal links between media and peacebuilding diverge significantly in their conclusions. Some highlight the media’s peacebuilding capacity.21 Others focus on media’s ability 

to amplify conflict and unrest. Snyder and Ballentine, for example, resist the common wisdom 

that media diversity and the free flow of information necessarily promote peace:

We agree that media manipulation often plays a central role in promoting nationalist and 

ethnic conflict, but we argue that promoting unconditional freedom of public debate in 

newly democratizing societies is, in many circumstances, likely to make the problem 

worse. Historically and today, from the French Revolution to Rwanda, sudden liberalizations of press freedom have been associated with bloody outbursts of popular nationalism. The most dangerous situation is precisely when the government’s press monopoly 

begins to break down. During incipient democratization, when civil society is burgeoning but democratic institutions are not fully entrenched, the state and other elites are 

forced to engage in public debate in order to compete for mass allies in the struggle for 

power. Under those circumstances, governments and their opponents often have the 

motive and the opportunity to play the nationalist card.22

In a different vein, Cees Hamelink argues that “communication may not build peace, but it can 

certainly contribute to war,” necessitating the creation of an international media alert system 

that monitors for hate speech and incitement to violence in areas in conflict.23

Measuring the causal impact of one specific media intervention is perhaps even more challenging than measuring the overall relationship between a country’s or area’s media and communications system, and peacebuilding. Caux participant Bridget Kimball, project manager at 

IREX, underscores the problems of attributing impact to a specific program or set of programs:

Since 2008, IREX has supported media associations and outlets in Somaliland advocating for private radio, believing this to be a force for peace. Recently, IREX learned that 

the Somaliland Ministry of Information and National Guidance is preparing new guidelines that will permit private radio. Is this the result of IREX-supported advocacy? Or is 

it due to the work of other groups carrying out similar advocacy during the same time 

period? Or was the key factor the 2010 election that brought a different political party 

into power?

The debates surrounding the relative influence of media vis-à-vis other factors may never 

be completely settled. But systematic attention to research design, the expansion of experimental methods that seek to isolate media effects,24 and careful consideration and testing 

of metrics will help expand knowledge about the relationship between media interventions 

and peacebuilding.

Unreliable Media Usage Data 

Actors working in conflict environments are also unlikely to have accurate data on media 

usage and reach. Indeed, reliable and up-to-date information about media usage is available 

Few studies have actually 

documented direct causal 

links between media and 

violence, and fewer still 

have investigated media’s 

ability to promote peace. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 11 9/30/11 9:51:3
12 

PEACEWORKS 77

only in the world’s richest countries. Moreover, what data are available become quickly outdated. The information revolution has permeated countries and communities at every level of 

development and stability. Afghanistan, once a backwater of media and communication, has 

experienced media growth rates of more than 20 percent per year and is now home to 75 active television stations, 175 active radio stations, and a monthly increase of 150,000 new cell 

phone subscribers. The lack of baseline data and the proliferation of new information sources, 

coupled with the growing complexity of information flows both within and into conflictaffected countries, present major challenges for evaluation. 

In the first half of 2011, the international community watched in amazement as protests 

spread from Tunisia to Egypt, to Bahrain, to Libya, and to other countries in the Middle East. 

Old and new media platforms provided critical conduits for information both among protesters and between protesters and the international community. At the same time, due to their 

perceived importance, these same platforms were major targets for those attempting to stay in 

power. With uncertain access to old and new media platforms, different actors moved to use 

different mechanisms for communication. Messages moved from person to person by word 

of mouth, to mobile networks, to social media, to old media, and back again in a labyrinthine 

web. Moreover, media platforms intended for one use were quickly appropriated for another. 

It is no wonder that considerable debate remains about the role of social media in the Arab 

Spring. In such an environment, how does a researcher isolate the contribution of a specific 

platform or initiative? 

Heterogeneity of Conflict Environments

Conflicts are diverse. While certain organizations might specialize in working on “media in 

conflict,” there is extreme variation both within and between conflict countries. The heterogeneity of conflict situations has only increased in recent years. Until the end of the Cold War, 

most international conflicts occurred between states. In the post–Cold War environment, there 

has been a major upswing in civil wars (e.g., in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia), 

terrorist attacks, and humanitarian disasters evolving out of these occurrences.25 Moreover, 

regardless of the root causes of the conflict, any conflict scenario involves multiple stages. Different bodies ascribe different terminology, but at a minimum these stages generally include no 

conflict, latent conflict, emergence, escalation, stalemate, de-escalation, settlement/resolution, 

postconflict peacebuilding, and reconciliation.26 This multiplicity of stages presents innumerable challenges to instituting replicable research methods that allow for comparisons between 

and across conflict zones. 

Shifting Objectives 

The macrolevel objectives of a specific intervention often change according to the overall level 

of conflict. Different levels of conflict necessitate different goals. Media interventions may be 

conducted to facilitate one or more of the following:

■ Preventive diplomacy, which involves efforts used by the international community to 

keep disputes from turning into full-scale conflicts.

■ Conflict prevention techniques, used to prevent local disputes and conflicts from 

escalating into wider confrontations. This may entail addressing factors that cause 

conflicts to develop, such as poverty, corruption, unaccountability in government or the 

military, or inequality.

Afghanistan, once a 

backwater of media 

and communication, is 

now home to 75 active 

television stations, 175 

active radio stations, and 

a monthly increase of 

150,000 new cell 

phone subscribers. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 12 9/30/11 9:51:3
 13

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

■ Peacemaking efforts, to encourage dialogue between opposing sides, and, ultimately, 

establish a peace accord.

■ Peacekeeping efforts, to monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in postconflict situations and help ex-combatants implement the peace agreements they have 

signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, 

power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, measures to strengthen the rule of law, 

and economic and social development.

One project, spanning several years or sometimes just a few months, may operate through 

different stages of conflict, which can and often do influence the project’s ultimate objectives. 

Media’s Multiple Roles in Conflict

On a related note, a single media initiative can play multiple roles simultaneously or over 

the life cycle of a project. A media organization may either propel or undermine movements 

toward a free and open political system. At the same time, the organization’s programs may 

also serve as conduits for transmitting important health or safety information. Funding bodies and project implementers often disagree about what roles should be assessed during 

evaluation. For example, a project implementer may propose to construct a community radio 

station in order to ameliorate conflict by providing a platform for constructive dialogue and 

debate among local citizens. The funding agency, on the other hand, may be interested only 

in evaluations that measure the extent to which the radio station furthered Millennium Development Goals.27 Because the time and money allocated to evaluation is typically limited, 

evaluations often focus on measuring the extent to which projects achieve donor-outlined 

goals, thus missing other significant outcomes. M & E often uncovers unexpected findings. 

In 2007, when conducting media monitoring of the quality of political journalism, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights became concerned that callers to the Kalenjinlanguage station urged for “the people of the milk . . . to cut the grass”—their coded language 

for the forceful removal of the ethnic Kikuyu from traditional Kalenjin homelands in the 

Rift Valley. Thus, assessing a media intervention according to criteria determined at the outset of a particular project may not adequately capture the full range of its contributions.

Despite the challenges to evaluation discussed above, better evaluation is essential because 

it offers critical evidence that can inform the production of future programs and direct donors 

and policymakers in the judicious and economical allocation of funding and policy. For some 

useful guides to evaluation, see box 2.

Improving evaluation begins with attention to a series of issues discussed in the 

next section.

Roadblocks to Improved Evaluation

All activities undertaken by the international community inside the territory of another 

country entail a high degree of uncertainty. There are few safeguards to ensure a particular 

program’s success. That a program worked in one country is no guarantee that it will have 

the same result in a different country or environment. Still, there are lessons to be learned 

from every project, whether it succeeds or fails. There is a general consensus that evaluation 

techniques should be improved and expanded in three ways: (1) encouraging realistic expectations, (2) promoting clarity about evaluation requirements, and (3) improving conflictspecific research methods.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 13 9/30/11 9:51:3
14 

PEACEWORKS 77

Encouraging Realistic Expectations 

The Democratic Republic of Congo has fluctuated between full-scale civil war and sporadic 

violence since 1997. The Eritrean war spanned three decades, from 1961 to 1991. Afghanistan 

has been in a state of war since the 1978 Saur Revolution. Even with brief conflicts, such as 

the 1991 Togo War which lasted only six days, creating a lasting and sustainable peace may 

take years or even decades. Specific media interventions, in contrast, are typically much shorter. 

Governments and other funding organizations tend to plan in three- to five-year cycles. Projects that span an entire funding cycle are considered long-term and are the exception rather 

than the rule. Most funded projects last only weeks or even days. This typically short life span 

has created a situation in which implementers seeking to conform to funding cycles exaggerate the claims of what a specific program is likely to achieve in the short term. This presents 

a significant challenge for evaluation, because research is most helpful when it is framed realistically. This issue influences all stakeholders involved. Implementers feel pressured to report positive outcomes to their funding organizations, and funding organizations feel similar 

pressure to report success to their boards or to the policymakers who ultimately decide their 

budgets. At the same time, there is a common recognition that only realistic assessments are 

useful in guiding future programs. These frustrations are echoed in more general assessments 

Box 2. Guidebooks for Monitoring and Evaluation

Banda, Fackson, Guy Berger, et al. How to Assess Your Media Landscape. Grahamstown, South 

Africa: Global Commission for Media Development. 2008. http://fesmedia.org/fileadmin/files-fesmedia.org/GFMD-Media_assessment_tool_2-09.pdf

Church, Cheyanne, and Mark Rogers. “Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation 

in Conflict Transformation Programs.” Search for Common Ground Manual. 2006. www.sfcg.org/

Documents/manualintro.pdf 

Dziedzic, Michael J., Barbara Sotirin, and John Agoglia. Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments 

(MPICE): A Metrics Framework for Assessing Conflict Transformation and Stabilization. Washington, 

DC: USIP Press, 2008. www.usip.org/publications/measuring-progress-conflict-environments-mpice

DFID. “Working Effectively in Conflict-Affected and Fragile Situations.” Briefing Paper I: Monitoring 

and Evaluation. 2010. www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/governance/building-peacefulstates-I.pdf 

DFID. Working with the Media in Conflicts and Other Emergencies. London: DFID, 1999. See chapter 4 for monitoring and evaluation guidance. http://reliefweb.int/node/21762

Howard, Ross. The Power of the Media: A Handbook for Peacebuilders. Washington, DC: European 

Centre for Conflict Prevention, 2003. For information on evaluation, see chapters 2 and 3.

Knowlton, Lisa W., and Cynthia C. Phillips. The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great 

Results. London: Sage, 2008. 

OECD-DAC. Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities. 2008. 

www.oecd.org/secure/pdfDocument/0,2834,en_21571361_34047972_39774574_1_1_1_1,00.pdf

Sartorius, Rolf, and Christian Carver. Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning for Fragile States and 

Peacebuilding Programs, Practical Tools for Improving Program Performance and Results. Prepared 

for USAID. Arlington, VA: Social Impact, 2006. www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=2674

UNDP. Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. 2009. www.

undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf

UNESCO. Media Development Indicators: A Framework for Assessing Media Development. Paris: 

UNESCO, 2008. www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publicationsand-communication-materials/publications/full-list/media-development-indicators-a-framework-forassessing-media-development/

USAID. “Evaluation Policy.” 2011. www.usaid.gov/evaluation/

PW77_interior_3a.indd 14 9/30/11 9:51:3
 15

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

of the monitoring and evaluation of development projects. In their independent evaluation 

of reforms leading out of the Paris Declaration, Richard Blue and John Eriksson conclude, 

“Political and statutory pressure to report positive outcomes on a yearly basis works against the 

kinds of time frames and long-term efforts most likely to be effective, making ‘the long run’ 

simply too long. Good development practice may end up subsumed under short-term diplomatic and defense objectives.”28

The promotion of realistic evaluations requires several institutional changes. First, where 

possible, follow-up assessments should be conducted well after the project cycle has completed. Positive outcomes identified in the immediate aftermath of a specific intervention may 

quickly fade. In 1996, following the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, the international community poured millions of dollars into creating the Open Broadcast Network 

(OBN), a private broadcaster designed to challenge the dominance of partisan and ethnic news 

sources. Initial evaluations deemed OBN a major contributor to democratic debate. But the 

OBN never attracted an audience proportionate to its cost, and after donor funding ended in 

2000, it gradually moved into obsolescence as partisan media continued to thrive.29 Therefore, 

follow-up assessments conducted well after the conclusion of a project are a critical component 

of realistic evaluations. Also, evaluators should use multiple methods in order to crossverify 

findings and test for unexpected outcomes. Pressures to report positive outcomes encourage 

evaluation plans designed to confirm that the project implementers have achieved whatever 

they set out to achieve. But media interventions may produce unintended consequences, both 

positive and negative. Methodologists frequently express discontent with uniform approaches 

to evaluation and emphasis on research methods that test only for anticipated results. To better identify unexpected outcomes, evaluations should, where possible, incorporate emergent 

practices such as participatory evaluations—a form of evaluation in which stakeholders in 

the program (providers, partners, customers, beneficiaries, and any other interested parties) 

actively participate in all stages of research, from planning and design to forming conclusions 

and future recommendations. 

Promoting Clarity about Evaluation Requirements

Methodologists and practitioners concur that funding agencies need to provide greater clarity 

about their expectations for evaluations. Evaluation guidance can be improved in three central 

areas: (1) using clear and consistent terminology, (2) standardizing reporting requirements 

within and across funding agencies, and (3) cogently articulating project goals and outcomes 

and the theoretical assumptions that link them to project activities. 

Clear and Consistent Terminology 

Effective evaluation begins with the clear and consistent use of critical terminology. Semantic confusion undermines not only the conduct of evaluations but also dialogue about, and 

understanding of, research findings. This confusion impedes effective programmatic monitoring and evaluation and impact evaluation, thus preventing the sharing of best practices and 

lessons learned. 

Perhaps surprisingly, the word “evaluation” itself often leads to confusion between implementers and donors. Those unfamiliar with M & E practices often use “evaluation” as an umbrella term encompassing all appraisals of a specific program or initiative. For M & E professionals, evaluation refers to a particular step in efforts to demonstrate the efficacy and impact 

Effective evaluation 

begins with the clear and 

consistent use of critical 

terminology. Semantic 

confusion undermines 

not only the conduct 

of evaluations but also 

dialogue about, and 

understanding of, 

research findings. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 15 9/30/11 9:51:3
16 

PEACEWORKS 77

of a program or set of programs. It is critically important to employ precise terminology that 

disaggregates the three equally important and integrated steps to any programmatic review: 

■ Assessment: appraisal of the media landscape and sociopolitical context for the conflict 

at the outset of a media intervention, which produces the project design.

■ Monitoring: the regular collection of information to assess operational progress in implementing the plan. If properly conducted, monitoring produces valuable insights for 

improving project results and uncovering unintended consequences.

■ Evaluation: the periodic collection of information to assess progress in changing the 

behavior and well-being of target populations at the project’s end or at the conclusion of a 

distinct phase, where the project funder and the implementer have agreed to conduct an 

evaluation. Ideally, evaluations are designed to produce a comprehensive picture and 

shared understanding of the project’s results through one or more research methods (e.g., 

surveys, interviews, focus groups, experimental designs).

Monitoring data are collected regularly and reported at regular intervals, whereas evaluation data are typically collected beforehand (i.e., baseline data), at the midpoint, and at the 

conclusion of the project. A definitive set of steps or ways to do assessment, monitoring, or 

evaluation does not exist. The components of each vary widely depending on the type, context, 

and scope of the program under review. 

A second key area of definitional confusion is the use of the word “impact” to describe any 

one of what are actually three distinct, equally important results that flow from a combination 

of inputs (funds, personnel, and other resources) and activities (training, production, capacity 

building, and so on):

■ Outputs: Easily quantified or observed (though not always easily obtained) results, such 

as numbers of personnel trained, numbers of programs produced, laws or regulations 

passed or improved, or creation of a new handbook of terms to avoid in broadcasts 

because of their potential to incite violence. 

■ Outcomes: Changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or practice that result from a 

given media intervention (e.g., displaced persons learn from radio broadcasts how to 

reach loved ones; news editors receive training and begin emphasizing more balanced 

reporting; or a government passes a new law banning hate speech, in response to a 

groundswell in public opinion generated by call-in talk shows or news reports). 

■ Impact: The conflict-prevention or peacebuilding effect of an intervention, such as a 

decrease in the number of violent incidents. Of the three categories of result, impact is 

the most difficult to gauge, because of the vast and complex constellation of social, political, economic, security, and other factors that determine levels of violence. 

All stakeholders need to work proactively on using clear and consistent terminology. Donors should work with other donors to develop and agree on a common vocabulary. Methodologists have a responsibility to reach out and educate nontechnical funding staff and policymakers, and implementers need to take the time to become familiar with key terminology. 

Rather than reinvent the wheel, all parties involved should make an effort to consistently 

use the definitions outlined in the OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results 

Based Management. 30

Standardized Reporting Requirements 

Differing reporting requirements present a major hurdle to effective evaluation. While implementers lament the lack of standardized reporting requirements in general, this frustration 

is most keenly felt over the use of logical frameworks. Most donors require that monitorPW77_interior_3a.indd 16 9/30/11 9:51:3
 17

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

ing and evaluation plans be placed in a logical framework matrix or LogFrame (also called a 

results framework matrix). First put into use by USAID in the 1960s, the LogFrame is now 

the most popular planning tool required by major donors. In asking for a LogFrame, a donor 

is essentially asking project implementers to map out the path (also called a results chain) of 

their monitoring and evaluation plan from beginning to end, in the form of a chart. Table 1 

replicates the general LogFrame format required by AusAID.

However, almost every donor uses its own variation on the LogFrame model. Table 2 compares the different logical frameworks used by major donors.

As table 2 illustrates, each of the donor LogFrame templates differs slightly in terminology and ordering. What table 2 does not illustrate is that because terminology and reporting 

requirements are not standardized, donor expectations for how each of these boxes should be 

completed vary significantly. Ensuring that the completed LogFrame fulfills the specific donor’s requirements entails a careful review of the accompanying explanatory literature provided 

by the donor. The quality and clarity of this supporting literature also differs from donor to 

donor, and some donors provide dedicated support staff readily available for consultation, while 

others do not. One project may be funded by a number of different donors, each requiring a 

different LogFrame and each using different terminology. Not surprisingly, this often leads to 

significant confusion about donor expectations and slows down the reporting process. Streamlined and consistent reporting requirements are particularly important for those working in 

conflict environments, where time is typically of the essence.

Activity Description Indicators

Means of 

Verification Assumptions

Goal or Impact

The long term development impact (policy goal) 

that the activity contributes at a national or 

sectoral level

How the achievement 

will be measured—

including appropriate 

targets (quantity, 

quality, and time)

Sources of information on the Goal 

indicator(s)—including who will collect it 

and how often

Purpose or Outcome

The medium term result(s) 

that the activity aims to 

achieve in terms of benefits to target groups

How the achievement 

of the Purpose will be 

measured—including 

appropriate targets 

(quantity, quality, and 

time)

Sources of information on the Purpose 

indicator(s)—including who will collect it 

and how often

Assumptions concerning the Purpose 

to Goal linkage

Component Objectives 

or Intermediate Results

This level in the objectives 

or results hierarchy can be 

used to provide a clear 

link between outputs and 

outcomes (particularly for 

larger multicomponent 

activities)

How the achievement 

of the Component 

Objectives will be 

measured—including 

appropriate targets 

(quantity, quality, and 

time)

Sources of information on the Component Objectives 

indicator(s)—including who will collect it 

and how often

Assumptions concerning the Component Objective to 

Output linkage

Outputs

The tangible products or 

services that the activity 

will deliver

How the achievement 

of the Outputs will be 

measured—including 

appropriate targets 

(quantity, quality, and 

time)

Sources of information on the Output 

indicator(s)—including who will collect it 

and how often

Assumptions concerning the Output to 

Component Objective linkage

Table 1. AusAID General Logframe Matrix

Source: AusAID, “Ausguideline 3.3: The Logical Framework Approach,” Oct. 2005, www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide/pdf/

ausguideline3.3.pdf.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 17 9/30/11 9:51:3
18 

PEACEWORKS 77

Table 2. Comparison of Donor Agency Logical/Results Frameworks

AusAID LogFrame

Goal/Impact Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions

Purpose/Outcome Indicators Means of VerificationAssumptions

Component Objectives/Intermediate Results Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions

Outputs Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions

DANIDA LogFrame

Development Objective/Immediate Objective Indicators Targets Means of Verification

OutputsIndicatorsTargetsMeans of Verification

ActivitiesIndicatorsTargetsMeans of Verification

InputsIndicatorsTargetsMeans of Verification

DFID LogFrame

GoalIndicatorBaseline & yearMilestone 1Milestone 2Target Year

PurposeIndicatorBaseline & yearMilestone 1Milestone 2Target Year

Inputs (£)DFID (£)Govt (£)Other (£)DFID Share £%

Inputs (HR)DFID (FTEs)

Output 1IndicatorBaseline & yearMilestone 1Milestone 2Target Year

Impact WeightingIndicatorBaseline & yearMilestone 1Milestone 2Target YearRisk Rating

EU LogFrame

Overall ObjectiveIntervention LogicObjectively verifiable indicators of achievementSources & means of indicatorsAssumptions

Specific ObjectiveIntervention LogicObjectively verifiable indicators of achievementSources & means of indicatorsAssumptions

Expected ResultsIntervention LogicObjectively verifiable indicators of achievementSources & means of indicatorsAssumptions

ActivitiesIntervention LogicObjectively verifiable indicators of achievementSources & means of indicatorsAssumptions

PW77_interior_3a.indd 18 9/30/11 9:51:3
 19

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

SIDA1

LogFame

Development Objective/GoalIntervention LogicObjectively measurable & verifiable indicatorsSources of verifications

Project Objective/PurposeIntervention LogicObjectively measurable & verifiable indicatorsSources of verifications

ActivitiesIntervention LogicObjectively measurable & verifiable indicatorsSources of verifications

Results/OutputsIntervention LogicObjectively measurable & verifiable indicatorsSources of verifications

Inputs/ResourcesIntervention LogicObjectively measurable & verifiable indicatorsSources of verifications

USAID Results Framework

Strategic Objective Intermediate Results Outputs Activities Inputs

World Bank2

LogFrame

Program Strategy (CAS3 Goal)

Cause & EffectPerformance IndicatorsMonitoring & EvaluationGoal to Super Goal

Project Impact (DO)Cause & EffectPerformance IndicatorsMonitoring & EvaluationDO to Goal

Project Deliverables (Outputs)Cause & EffectPerformance IndicatorsMonitoring & EvaluationOutput to Purpose

Key Component ActivitiesCause & EffectInputsMonitoring & EvaluationActivity to Output

1.Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

2. World Bank, The LogFrame Handbook: A Logical Framework Approach to Project Cycle Management (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000), www.wau.boku.ac.at/fileadmin._/H81/H811/

Skripten/811332/811332_G3_log-framehandbook.pdf.

3. Country Assistance Strategy.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 19 9/30/11 9:51:3
20 

PEACEWORKS 77

Cogently Articulated Project Goals

It is critical that implementers and donors agree on and clearly define the different steps to 

project planning, execution, and evaluation outlined in the project’s logical framework. This 

includes project inputs (e.g., money, manpower), activities (e.g., peace journalism training), 

outputs (e.g., number of journalists trained), project outcomes (e.g., improved reporting), and 

impact (e.g., democracy promotion)—and, most importantly, the assumptions that link these 

elements together. The assumptions that link project inputs and activities to outputs and impact are often referred to as a theory of change.

A theory of change is the set of beliefs or assumptions about how change happens. Many 

pundits suggest, for example, that diversification of media outlets leads to a diversity of voices, 

which engenders democratic change. Social scientists are trained to articulate a theory of change, 

which they test through the research process. In principle, all research, whether academic or nonacademic, begins with a clearly articulated theory of change that can then be tested through the 

research process. Theories supported by research will be applied in the future, and those that are 

disproved are discarded. There is broad agreement among those working in conflict environments 

and in the international development and peace support community that theories of change 

benefit M & E frameworks by providing a systematized means of thinking about the different 

components of project planning, implementation, and evaluation.31

But too often, monitoring and evaluation plans are drafted without a clear articulation of 

the theory of change that guides a specific media intervention. Failure to articulate theories 

of change impedes learning from the research process, because there is no systematic test of 

which theories work and which do not. One of the most consistent questions asked by M 

& E professionals is, “Are we asking the right research questions?” More importantly, are the 

questions we are asking answerable by the research methods employed? Regardless of the 

scope of an organization’s goals, budget, and philosophy, LogFrames undergirded by a clear 

theory of change are an elemental best practice because they help donors, implementers, and 

methodologists get on the same page and agree on the right research questions. But in actual 

practice, regrettably, monitoring and evaluation plans are often treated as perfunctory and not 

as an opportunity to bring clarity and utility to the research process.

Below are some examples of theories of change associated with media interventions in 

conflict environments:

■ Individual change theory: Media promote peace by affecting the knowledge, attitudes, 

and behaviors of a critical mass of people. 

■ Healthy relationships and connections theory: The introduction or improvement of 

media sources promotes peace by providing an information conduit between dissenting 

groups, thus reducing prejudice and stereotypes between groups.32

■ Political elite theory: Media interventions promote peace because they place pressure on 

the political elites to move toward conflict resolution. 

■ Grassroots change theory: Empowering communities by providing them with balanced 

information or the necessary tools to circulate their own information encourages grassroots mobilization for conflict resolution.

■ Public attitudes theory: Prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance of difference encourage 

war and violence. The media can encourage peace by changing public attitudes and 

building greater tolerance in society.

LogFrames undergirded 

by a clear theory of 

change are an elemental 

best practice because 

they help donors, 

implementers, and 

methodologists get on 

the same page and 

agree on the right 

research questions. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 20 9/30/11 9:51:3
 21

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

Improving Conflict-Specific Research Methodologies 

Conflict-specific approaches are needed in three major areas: (1) expanding the number of 

media-specific conflict indicators, (2) adapting research methods to conflict environments, and 

(3) engaging with, and building the capacity of, local researchers. 

Indicators 

There are several sets of indicators tailored to assessing media initiatives, and a number of metrics 

developed for measuring conflict transformation.33 But neither group of indicators is tailored toward assessing the relationship between media, on the one hand, and peacebuilding and conflict 

prevention, on the other. Few, if any, conflict-specific indicators for assessing media’s impact in 

conflict countries are applicable across a range of conflict situations, countries, and cultures, and 

relevant in different implementation and evaluation contexts. The Freedom House Freedom of 

the Press Survey, IREX’s Media Sustainability Index, and Reporters Without Borders’ Press 

Freedom Index produce aggregate rankings against which to measure the evolution of a media 

environment at the country level. And while these indices are often used as proxy measurements 

for the success or failure of a specific program, they were not designed to serve as project-level 

indicators.34 While each of these indices, in calculating country rankings, weighs the number 

of journalists subject to violence or intimidation, none probes the broader relationship between 

changes in the media and peacebuilding. In other words, they are principally interested in how 

conflict influences the media, rather than in how changes in the media influence conflict. 

Some donors, such as USAID, have developed program-level indicator standards that do 

measure media activities in conflict environments. But these standards speak only to the quantity rather than the quality of individual project outputs (e.g., the “number of media stories 

disseminated with US government support to facilitate the advancement of reconciliation or 

peace processes”).35 Standardized project-level indicators need to be developed that assess media-related outcomes in the context of a range of conflict conditions and measure the quantity 

as well as the quality of the media intervention in question. In a 2003 report, Mark Frohardt 

and Jonathan Temin laid out a series of indicators that may be useful to identify societies in 

which media outlets are especially susceptible to abuse or may be in the early stages of manipulation.36 Frohardt and Temin suggest looking at three categories of structural indicators: 

(1) the reach, accessibility, and plurality of media outlets; (2) the capacity and the political, 

ethnic, religious, and regional composition of media professionals; and (3) the independence 

and effectiveness of government institutions concerned with the media. They also highlight the 

importance of assessing two content indicators: (1) the presence of content creating fear and 

(2) the presence of content suggesting that conflict is inevitable. 

But so far, no indicators measure the contribution of a specific media intervention to peacebuilding or, conversely, to the exacerbation of conflict. Because there is extreme variation between 

and within fragile or conflict situations, building a generally applicable set of indicators is no easy 

task. But it is both possible and desirable to develop sets of indicators tailored to different conflict 

scenarios. All such indicators should use a sufficiently bold and resilient matrix to allow donors 

and implementers to discern whether specific media interventions are likely to promote a culture 

of peacebuilding or whether they may produce the opposite effect, thus fueling violence and 

insecurity. For a list of useful media-and-conflict research publications, see box 3.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 21 9/30/11 9:51:3
22 

PEACEWORKS 77

Flexible Research Methods

Research methods developed in stable conditions are commonly ported into conflict situations 

with little adaptation. Because conflict frequently disrupts monitoring and evaluation plans, 

donors need to build flexibility into their evaluation requirements. This may require additional 

financial commitments. For example, when conditions prohibit visiting the site of a particular 

intervention, it may be necessary to bring people living in those areas to alternate locations to 

participate in testing and feedback. Moreover, while donors have traditionally requested quantitative research methods that result in easily reportable statistical data, collecting systematic, reliable quantitative data in conflict environments is challenging. Qualitative data usefully complement quantitative findings and are often easier to collect in difficult research environments. 

Local Research Capacity

A critical step toward improving the evaluation of media interventions in conflict countries 

is to learn from, and build the capacity of, local researchers. It is not uncommon for donors 

and project implementers to contract international (mostly Western) methodologists to evaluate programs conducted in countries about which those methodologists have little previous 

knowledge. Regardless of their research credentials or past familiarity with the country, international evaluators are typically less familiar than their local counterparts with current safety 

and security concerns, political power dynamics, and sociocultural issues that commonly comBox 3. Media-and-Conflict Research Publications

BBC World Service Trust. “The Role of Media in Fragile Situations: A Research Dialogue Across 

Disciplines.” Report of research symposium, Stanmer House, Brighton, UK, January, 2009. www.bbc.

co.uk/worldservice/trust/pdf/media_fragile_states.pdf

Bratic, Vladimir. “Media Effects During Violent Conflict: Evaluating Media Contributions to Peace 

Building.” Conflict & Communication Online. 4 (2). 2005. www.cco.regener-online.de/2006_1/

abstr_engl/bratic_abstr_engl.htm

Bratic, Vladimir, and Lisa Schirch. “Why and When to Use Media for Conflict Prevention and Peace 

Building.” Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. Issue Paper 6. 2007. 

www.centreforcommunicationrights.org/images/stories/database/tools/gppac-whyand%20whento-use-the-media.pdf

Frohardt, Mark, and Jonathon Temin. “Use and Abuse of Media in Vulnerable Societies.” USIP Special Report no. 110. 2003. www.usip.org/publications/use-and-abuse-media-vulnerable-societies

Mbeke, Peter Oriare. “The Role of Media in Conflict and Peacebuilding in Kenya.” Internews Literature Review Report. 2009. www.internews.org/pubs/kenya/LiteratureReview_

ReportingPeaceKenya_20090415.pdf

Melone, Sandra D., Georgios Terzis, and Ozsel Beleli. “Using the Media for Conflict Transformation: 

The Common Ground Experience.” Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. 2003. 

http://opentraining.unesco-ci.org/cgi-bin/page.cgi?g=Detailed%2F926.html;d=1

Putzel, James, and Joost van der Zwan. “Why Templates for Media Development Do Not Work in 

Crisis States: Defining and Understanding Media Development Strategies in Post-War and Crisis 

States.” Workshop Report, LSE Crisis States Research Centre. 2005. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/837/1/

MEDIA.REPORT.pdf

Price, Monroe E., Ibrahim al-Marashi, and Nicole A. Stremlau. “Media in the Peace-building Process: 

Ethiopia and Iraq.” In Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform, ed. Pippa Norris. 

Washington, DC: World Bank. 2010. www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/WorldBankReport/

Chapter%209%20Price,%20Al%20Marashi,%20Stremlau.pdf

Robertson, Andrew, Eran Fraenkel, Emrys Schoemaker, and Sheldon Himelfarb. Media in Fragile Environments: The USIP Intended-Outcomes Needs Assessment Methodology. Washington, DC: USIP 

Press. 2011. www.usip.org/files/COI%20-%20Images/PMT_Robertson_final.pdf

PW77_interior_3a.indd 22 9/30/11 9:51:3
 23

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

plicate every step of the research process in a conflict environment. Local wisdom can be helpful at every stage of the research process, beginning with securing the necessary permissions to 

conduct research in the first place. In some countries, no formal government permissions are 

necessary, while other countries have stringent and often labyrinthine application procedures, 

rendered even more complex in a conflict situation. It is often equally, if not more, important 

to obtain research permissions from local religious or community leaders than from official 

sources. A researcher interested in working in displaced-persons camps in Darfur, for example, 

must obtain government permission from the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security 

Services. And while it is not dictated by law, they would be foolish to begin any research without also first obtaining permission from the local wali (governor) as well as from various camp 

leaders. Certain communities may also be resistant or overly conciliatory toward researchers of 

specific gender, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Local researchers are often in the best position to advise on these issues. They can also be critical sources of information at the project 

planning and monitoring stages. In the mid-1990s, for example, the International Committee 

of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the BBC World Service’s Somali Section coproduced a drama 

series emphasizing reconciliation and humanitarian values. While some audience members 

embraced the series, others viewed it as part of a plot by a rival clan. Only during the evaluations conducted after the conclusion of the series did researchers discover why. Although the 

drama was set in an imaginary village inhabited by a diverse population, almost all the actors 

hailed from the same refugee camp in northern Kenya and spoke with an accent that gave 

away their clan.37

Therefore, the international community needs to broaden its commitment to training and 

using local researchers and also doing participatory evaluations. Participatory evaluations, in 

which project beneficiaries are also asked to collect data, are especially useful in conflict environments. Enlisting the help of project beneficiaries serves a number of purposes simultaneously: it increases transparency, provides a means of checking official data sources, and 

improves local research capacity.38

The Caux Principles

Along with a sustainable economy, the rule of law, a safe and secure environment, and stable 

governance, an open and inclusive media system is vital to peacebuilding. The media can play a 

pivotal role as a conduit for dialogue among dissenting parties and as a purveyor of critical information about available services or potential threats that might make the difference between 

life and death for those living in conflict environments. Given these high stakes, implementers, 

donors, and methodologists alike need to provide better support for evaluation in order to expand knowledge about what the media can and cannot achieve in conflict environments. This 

will improve policymaking and guide future programs. 

In recognition of the critical need for improved evaluation, an international group of 

stakeholders, including media program funders, implementers, and researchers, met in Caux, 

Switzerland, from December 13 to December 17, 2010, to develop a set of shared guiding 

principles and best practices for evaluating the impact of media and communication programs 

in conflict countries. 

The Caux participants believe that these principles represent a first step in developing an 

inclusive community of practice dedicated to improving the evaluation of media programs 

in conflict countries. We hope that our colleagues will support these principles and, more 

The media can play a 

pivotal role as a conduit 

for dialogue among 

dissenting parties and 

as a purveyor of critical 

information about 

available services or 

potential threats.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 23 9/30/11 9:51:3
24 

PEACEWORKS 77

importantly, join us in an ongoing process of self-reflection, discussion, and education about 

how to improve evaluation standards. We believe that an open and encompassing dialogue 

on how to improve evaluation methods will ultimately facilitate the creation of more tailored 

media practices that respond to the unique challenges of conflict environments, to the benefit 

of project funders, implementers, and intended recipients alike.

The Caux Principles, set forth below, are designed to reflect the specific needs of those 

involved in media programs in conflict countries. That said, designing a list of guiding principles applicable in every context, particularly given the variability and instability inherent in 

working in conflict countries, is all but impossible. Thus, these guiding principles are designed 

to be evolving rather than confining or exhaustive. Exceptions can and should be made as 

necessary to protect the integrity of the research and the safety and security of all those 

involved. In such instances, we hope that signatories will consult with, and draw upon the 

wisdom of, the expanding community of stakeholders who have signified their commitment 

to improving the evaluation of media programs in conflict countries.

In recognition of the benefits of evaluation to this work, and in keeping with the 

spirit in which the Caux meeting was convened, participants affirmed the following guiding principles:

Principle 1. Expand Financial Support for Evaluation of Media 

Interventions in Conflict Countries

Improving the efficacy and impact of media-related programs through evaluation requires a 

serious financial commitment. Recognizing the critical role of evaluation, Caux signatories 

agree, whenever possible, to the following:

■ Dedicate between 3 percent and 10 percent of media program budgets to monitoringand-evaluation programmatic activities, goals, and objectives. 

■ In the case of large-scale projects, allocate separate funding for impact evaluation.39

Principle 2. Encourage Flexible Program and Research Designs that Are 

Sensitive to Changing Conflict Conditions 

Fragile states often require flexible and creative approaches to evaluation research. The outbreak 

of physical violence, unexpected renegotiations of political power, rapid movement of populations, and unforeseen humanitarian emergencies are just a few factors that should influence 

project activities and their evaluation. Therefore, a project should not only be measured according to whether it achieved the expected outcomes outlined at the outset. Project outcomes and 

objectives should be reassessed and reevaluated in the face of rapidly changing conditions on 

the ground. At the same time, for those working in conflict environments, choices in program 

design can have life-or-death consequences. Consequently, those involved in evaluating these 

programs assume an added responsibility to collect data in as consistent, rigorous, and ethical 

a manner as possible.

Before initiating any project, participating entities agree, wherever possible to do 

the following:

■ Develop an evaluation plan and timeline consistent with the political, security, and 

development environment. 

■ Conduct a thorough assessment of the media landscape in its political context, incorporating the views of local stakeholders.

An open and 

encompassing dialogue 

on how to improve 

evaluation methods will 

ultimately facilitate 

the creation of more 

tailored media practices 

that respond to the 

unique challenges of 

conflict environments. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 24 9/30/11 9:51:3
 25

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

■ Investigate the dynamics of the local media marketplace (e.g., inflated local salaries or 

airtime charges) and how the proposed media project might alter those dynamics.

When conducting evaluations, participating entities agree, wherever possible, to do 

the following:

■ Use conflict-sensitive approaches when selecting and training local researchers and enumerators. Conflict-sensitive approaches vary according to the specific nature of the conflict. 

They may include, for example, paying particular attention to the demographic makeup of 

the research team if it is working in an area where ethnic or racial tensions are high. 

■ Make every reasonable effort to ensure the safety and security of researchers and those 

from whom research material is collected. In particular, research should be planned 

and conducted with extreme care in areas where investigators have little basic data or 

advance knowledge. 

■ Conduct rolling risk assessments to minimize unintended consequences (e.g., physical 

risks to project staff, risk of inflaming ethnic or sectarian tensions).

■ Be flexible in amending project outcomes in light of monitoring reports or in response to 

changing on-the-ground conditions that may have important implications for researchers 

and implementers. 

Principle 3. Carefully Select Conflict-Specific Media Indicators 

Research methods developed in stable environments are often untenable in conflict situations. Researchers should actively work to develop methodologies tailored to conflict scenarios. 

Methodologists and the academic community can also support better evaluation by developing and using project-level measurement criteria that probe the relationship between media 

projects and peacebuilding. Accordingly, supporters of the Caux Principles agree, wherever 

possible, to do the following:

■ Encourage and facilitate collaboration between methodologists and academics to develop 

project-level indicators that link media projects to peacebuilding.

■ Design research frameworks that address a range of evaluation criteria (e.g., project 

relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, consistency with values) specifically tailored to 

the social, political, and economic environment in question.

Principle 4. Engage and Collaborate with Local Researchers Familiar with 

Conflict Conditions 

Conducting research in conflict environments requires that evaluators foresee resistance to 

the demographics of research teams, respond appropriately to rapidly-shifting safety conditions, and navigate the often complex steps to securing the formal and informal permissions 

necessary to collect data. Local researchers are often in the best position to advise on these 

issues. Therefore, the international community needs to broaden its commitment to training 

and using local researchers. In recognition of this fact, supporters of the Caux Principles agree, 

wherever possible, to partner with local institutions (universities, NGOs, private research organizations, and civil society) to help build the skills, knowledge, and experience of local 

researchers and institutions, thus adding capacity that outlives the project.

Principle 5. Foster Learning, Sharing, and Collaboration about Evaluation 

In conflict environments, rapid shifts in the flow of humanitarian aid, the rule of law, and 

levels of violence present challenges for even the most experienced researchers and program 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 25 9/30/11 9:51:3
26 

PEACEWORKS 77

implementers. For those involved in evaluating media programs, these impediments to robust 

evaluation are compounded by the constantly evolving global media landscape and the resulting changes in the media ecologies of even the remotest countries. Given the unique challenges 

facing those involved in media interventions in conflict environments, collaboration and the 

sharing of research findings is essential. Sharing research findings and lessons learned both 

within and across organizations helps avoid the duplication of mistakes and maximizes the 

efficient allocation of the all-too-scarce human and financial resources available for evaluation. 

In support of this culture of learning, supporters of the Caux Principles agree, wherever possible, to do the following: 

■ As appropriate and where it does not threaten the safety and security of research subjects 

or researchers, share with other actors their not monitoring and evaluation reports, lessons learned, data, and best practices.

■ Generate recommendations on both project and policy level and circulate these to others 

involved in related efforts. 

Principle 6. Embed Evaluation into the Entire Project’s Life Cycle and Beyond 

To optimize impact and efficacy, evaluation should inform every phase of project execution, 

beginning with the design phase including the implementation and evaluation phases and, 

where possible, follow-up evaluations well after the project’s completion. Accordingly, supporters of the Caux Principles agree, wherever possible, to do the following:

■ When project funding and timing allow, come to an explicit agreement about the evaluation plan before a contract is signed.40 This includes identifying and agreeing on (a) 

baselines against which project success will be gauged; (b) inputs, activities, proposed 

outcomes, indicators of success, and supporting methodology; and (c) the roles and 

responsibilities of each party involved.

■ Identify and define the overarching project goals and sets of assumptions (i.e., theories of 

change) that link program activities to intended goals at the project-planning phase. This 

includes developing clearly articulated research questions that disaggregate individuallevel objectives (e.g., reaching a particular audience) from societal-level objectives (e.g., 

promoting freedom and democracy).

■ Begin each project with a monitoring plan based on a logical framework that includes 

baseline data, activities, outputs, data source(s), and frequency of data collection, as well 

as process and outcome indicators.41

■ Monitor all media project activities during the implementation phase to test whether they 

are effective.

Good M & E can offer helpful insights regarding project design and implementation 

strategies and uncover changes that may need to be made. Embedding evaluation into the 

execution of a project can also create a valuable feedback loop that improves the conduct of 

project activities as well as future project planning. To get the most value from evaluation, Caux 

signatories should, wherever possible, do the following:

■ Encourage interactions between donors, implementers, and researchers throughout the 

project cycle. 

■ Incorporate an ongoing review process in the project plan, recognizing that monitoring 

results, evaluation results, and environmental considerations may necessitate changing 

how project goals are measured—and even the project goals themselves. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 26 9/30/11 9:51:3
 27

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

■ Design research frameworks that measure unexpected or unintended results. This may 

include incorporating mixed methods, counterfactuals, control groups, experimental 

methods, or randomized controlled trials.

■ Consider using multiple methods to crossverify findings and test causal links. 

Principle 7. Promote Realistic Evaluation Practices 

Because stakeholders are often under pressure to demonstrate a program’s efficacy, evaluation 

plans are often designed to maximize positive findings in the interest of continued funding 

streams. But measuring media effects is difficult even in the most controlled environments, and 

establishing causal links between program activities and outcomes is particularly challenging 

in conflict environments. Donor organizations must be aware of—and implementers must be 

forthright about—what can realistically be achieved and measured. Supporters of the Caux 

Principles, therefore, agree, where possible, to do the following:

■ Actively educate all stakeholders involved—including donors, implementers, and methodologists—about what a project can and cannot achieve, and what can and cannot be 

measured through evaluation.

■ Understand the validity of a specific project’s theory of change, include both short- and 

long-term evaluation components.42

Principle 8. Work to Promote Greater Clarity Surrounding Evaluation 

The time necessary to navigate complex and unclear reporting requirements is a luxury that 

those working in rapidly shifting conflict environments can ill afford. Implementers struggle 

to understand and fulfill the expectations of their different funders. Greater clarity of terminology is needed. Overused jargon and misused terminology often undermine evaluation practices. Terms need to be clarified and standardized across the community of practice 

involved in evaluation. Developing a better understanding of how to conduct more effective 

Box 4. The Importance of Honest Evaluations and Realistic Expectations

An example of the importance of promoting realistic expectations that comes from my own experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the aim of establishing an independent media 

regulator in that country, as part of a large media-support program financed by Britain, Sweden, and 

France. This aim was originally written into the program’s logical framework—the road map that is 

meant to guide the whole program. Three and a half years into the project, we find, to our disappointment, that the DRC government is seriously dragging its heels on promulgating a law which will 

make this new regulatory body a proper legal entity and with its own budget and staff independent 

of the ruling elite. This is not surprising given that elections in the DRC are on the horizon later this 

year, and politicians of all stripes depend heavily on the various TV and radio stations they own and 

control in their local areas, to win votes and get reelected. They are not particularly interested in fair 

regulation of broadcasting if it means that the partisan—if not hate—messages they are planning to 

broadcast are regulated. Such is the norm in many conflict-affected countries that I have observed.

We will have to amend this particular goal, perhaps even cut it. But our media-support program 

will not have “failed” even if some of these higher goals—sometimes called “impacts”—are not 

achieved. There are many other achievements that can be pointed out—in the case of this particular 

program in the DRC, the wonderful Radio Okapi, for one. It’s okay not to solve everything, and it’s 

okay not to pretend we can.

—Mary Myers, independent evaluation consultant

PW77_interior_3a.indd 27 9/30/11 9:51:3
28 

PEACEWORKS 77

media interventions in conflict is the responsibility of all parties involved. Accordingly, the 

Caux Principles affirm that evaluations, where possible, should do the following:

■ Adhere to the glossary of terminology outlined by the more general guidelines for evaluation developed by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 

Development Assistance Committee Guidelines.43

■ Work toward common intra- and interorganizational codes of practice, vocabularies, and 

evaluation requirements across departments and bureaus. 

■ Clearly distinguish project outcomes from impact. Caux delegates believe that outcomes 

(immediate project-related goals) and impact (long-term consequences, which can be 

intended or unintended) are often conflated. This definitional confusion can present a 

major challenge for those working in evaluation.

Conclusions and Future Direction

The rise of the twenty-four-hour global news cycle and the proliferation of mobile phones 

and other communication devices puts media, information, and communication-oriented development front and center in conflict situations as in all facets of life. While the potential of 

media and communication development is seemingly limitless and while opportunities abound 

for creative approaches to journalism, radio and TV technology, and Web- and mobile-based 

applications as well as for more traditional communication practices, there remains a pressing need for timely and robust research that shows how, when, and why media matter. As 

this report has stressed, evaluating media effects is challenging under any circumstances, let 

alone in complex and fluctuating conflict conditions. There remains a paucity of research 

(both qualitative and quantitative) into the relationship between media interventions and 

peacebuilding indicators, such as fewer public incitements to violence, strengthened popular 

support for a peace processes, and increased citizen engagement in the postconflict electoral 

processes. Thoroughgoing and rigorous monitoring and evaluation, as championed by the 

Caux Principles, is an important step in expanding knowledge about media and peacebuilding and helping practitioners and donors better understand how to plan for and administer 

media programs in conflict and postconflict environments. Academics, methodologists, and 

other researchers working outside the monitoring and evaluation community can also support this process by conducting complementary studies into the relationship between media 

and conflict, with an eye to informing and improving the implementation and assessment 

of media initiatives. Research, learning, collaboration, and information sharing within and 

among organizations involved in media and conflict will ultimately improve program design 

and project management, and engender a better understanding of media’s role in conflict 

resolution and democratic transition.

Those concerned with monitoring and evaluation of media interventions in conflict countries are at a critical juncture. In the face of global economic downturn, policymakers and 

politicians no longer have the economic or political capital to fund projects without evidence of 

their utility. The onus is on the community involved in media-related projects to illustrate the 

projects’ importance and improve their efficacy. To make the most of this pivotal moment for 

monitoring and evaluating media interventions in conflict environments, this report suggests 

several key outcomes that can advance the culture of research and learning within the media 

development community:

■ Apply the Caux Principles: The Caux Principles represent a step toward drawing 

together a community of practice dedicated to expanding knowledge about the media’s 

The rise of the twentyfour-hour global news 

cycle and the proliferation 

of mobile phones and 

other communication 

devices puts media, 

information, and 

communication-oriented 

development front 

and center in 

conflict situations.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 28 9/30/11 9:51:3
 29

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

role in diffusing conflict and helping bring about peace and reconciliation. The principles 

should be treated as a living document that is regularly reviewed and updated based on 

the results of their practical application in the field, changes in the available media and 

communication technologies, and the expanding knowledge base of media’s impact on 

conflict.

■ Establish a Regular Meeting of Stakeholders: Building on the momentum begun at 

the Caux gathering, implementers, donors, and methodologists working in conflict 

environments should continue to meet regularly to share case studies, discuss best practices, and point to new ways forward. 

■ Foster a Community of Practice around Research: One of the principal challenges for 

evaluators is how to turn evaluation into a tool of change. Building a community of 

practice characterized by sharing evaluations across and within organizations is critical. 

Regular meetings are just the first step toward fostering such a community of learning 

and knowledge sharing. Those involved in media and conflict research should work to 

develop mechanisms for sharing and cross-fertilization, whether through circulation of 

project evaluations or through informal sharing of lessons learned. 

■ Expand Donor Engagement: Rather than lament the challenges of evaluation, implementers and methodologists should regularly seek out their donor partners. Regular 

interaction is the best way to convey the interest in, and passion for, more robust and 

meaningful evaluation research.

PW77_interior_3a.indd 29 9/30/11 9:51:3
30 

PEACEWORKS 77

Appendices

Appendix 1: About the Caux Workshop

An international group of media experts, media development professionals, international 

broadcasters, methodologists, and NGO and government officials met in Caux, Switzerland 

from December 13 to December 17, 2010, to develop a shared set of approaches and best practices for identifying the role that media and information programs can and do play in conflict 

and postconflict countries. The meeting was jointly convened by the Annenberg School for 

Communication, University of Pennsylvania; the United States Institute of Peace; the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Fondation Hirondelle; and Internews. It evolved out of a common recognition that while evaluation is considered increasingly critical to media initiatives 

across the board, important debates are ongoing about how to assess the value of media interventions in conflict countries, and about the factors that lead to success or failure. Attendees 

participated in five days of intensive work and discussion to set forth the Caux Principles, a 

set of guiding values and best practices that specifically address the exigencies of conducting 

evaluation research in conflict-affected areas. 

The complete agenda for the workshop is available at www.global.asc.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/

projects.cgi?id=82&p=main. The following background papers were prepared to enhance the 

workshop discussions:

■ Bruce, Daniel. “Presumption of Peace: Northern Uganda and Media Development 

2006–8.” 2010. www.global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary.PDFs/brucecaux2.pdf. 

■ Gagliardone, Iginio. “From Mapping Information Ecologies to Evaluating Media 

Interventions: An Experts Survey on Evaluating Media Interventions in Conflict 

Countries.” 2010. www.global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/iginocaux.pdf. 

■ Taylor, Maureen. “Methods of Evaluating Media Interventions in Conflict Countries.” 

2010. www.global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/taylorcaux2.pdf.

Appendix 2: Caux Workshop Participant List 

Susan Abbott, deputy director for program development, InterNews Network; Gordon Adam, 

managing director, Media Support Solutions; Claire Adamsick, Robert Bosch Foundation fellow, German Federal Foreign Office; Jean Louis Arcand, professor, Graduate Institute, Geneva; 

Amelia Arsenault, George Gerbner postdoctoral fellow, Annenberg School for Communication; 

Steven Assies, programme coordinator, Press Now; Radu Ban, economist, World Bank, Development Impact Evaluation Initiative; Daniel Bruce, media development consultant; Leah Ermarth, research manager, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Jean-Marie Etter, CEO, Fondation 

Hirondelle; Iginio Gagliardone, senior researcher, Annenberg School for Communication; Anna 

Godfrey, acting director of research, BBC World Service Trust; Emily Goldman, deputy director 

for interagency coordination, Office of Communication at U.S. Central Command; Maria Gulraize Khan, project officer, education, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; 

Sheldon Himelfarb, associate vice president, United States Institute of Peace; Gordana Jankovic, 

media program director, Open Society Foundation; Adam Kaplan, senior field adviser, Office 

of Transition Initiatives, USAID; Bridget Kimball, program officer, International Research and 

Exchanges Board; Shannon Maguire, program and conferences officer, Center for International Media Assistance; Susan Manuel, chief, peace and security, United Nations Department of 

Public Information; Frank Melloul, chief of strategy, development, and public affairs, Audiovisuel 

Extérieur de la France; Mary Myers, development communication consultant; Werner Neven, 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 30 9/30/11 9:51:3
 31

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

head of market and media research, Deutsche Welle; Nick Oatley, director of institutional learning, Search for Common Ground; Russell Eugene Parta, international broadcasting consultant; 

Raul Roman, senior project manager, InterMedia; Marjorie Rouse, vice president for program 

development, InterNews Network; Bruce Sherman, strategic planning manager, Broadcasting 

Board of Governors; Damase Sossou, research associate, Institut de Recherche Empirique en 

Économie Politique; Christoph Spurk, media researcher, Institute of Applied Media Studies; 

Andrew Stroehlein, communications director, International Crisis Group; Maureen Taylor, Gaylord chair of strategic communication, University of Oklahoma; Caroline Vuillemin, chief operations officer, Fondation Hirondelle; Matt Warshaw, vice president, D3 Systems; Colin Wilding, 

senior analyst, performance and assessment data, BBC Global News.

Appendix 3: About the Conveners of the Caux Workshop

Broadcasting Board of Governors

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), 

Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks 

(MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.

BBG broadcasters distribute programming in 59 languages to an estimated weekly audience of 165 million people via radio, TV, and the Internet and other new media. The BBG 

works to serve as an example of a free and professional press, reaching a worldwide audience 

with news, information, and relevant discussions.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a bipartisan board comprising nine members. 

Eight, no more than four from any one party, are appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the secretary of state, who serves ex officio.

Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for 

Communication, University of Pennsylvania

The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) is a leader in international education 

and training in comparative media law and policy. It affords students, academics, lawyers, regulators, civil society representatives, and others the opportunity to evaluate and discuss comparative, global, and international communication issues. Working with the Annenberg School; the 

University of Pennsylvania; and research centers, scholars, and practitioners from around the 

world; CGCS provides research opportunities for graduate students; organizes conferences and 

trainings; and provides consulting and advisory assistance to academic centers, governments, and 

NGOs. CGCS draws on various disciplines, including law, political science, and international relations, among others. The Center’s research and policy work addresses issues of media regulation, 

media and democracy, measuring and evaluating media development programs, public service 

broadcasting, and the media’s role in conflict and postconflict environments. 

Fondation Hirondelle 

Fondation Hirondelle is a Swiss NGO made up of journalists committed to creating independent media in war zones and other crisis areas. Founded in 1995, Fondation Hirondelle 

works in many countries, supplying information where it is missing, countering and correcting 

rumors, and fighting propaganda. It is one of a handful of organizations in the world with this 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 31 9/30/11 9:51:3
32 

PEACEWORKS 77

kind of experience. By virtue of its quality journalism and through its varied broadcasts, Fondation Hirondelle allows millions of people every day to gain a realistic picture of events in their 

own countries, form their own opinions, and, above all, get their voices heard. 

Internews

Internews is an international media development organization with the mission of empowering local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability 

to connect, and the means to make their voices heard. Through its programs, it improves the 

reach, quality, and sustainability of local media, enabling them to better serve the information 

needs of their communities.

Internews has worked in more than 70 countries and trained more than 80,000 people 

in media skills. Working together with local partners, its activities include establishing and 

supporting media outlets, journalist associations, and broadcast networks. It also has special 

programs to improve reporting on the environment, humanitarian crises, public health, and 

women’s issues.

Formed in 1982, Internews Network is a 501(c)(3) organization headquartered in California. It currently has offices in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America.

United States Institute of Peace (USIP)

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent international 

conflicts; promote postconflict stability and development; and increase conflict management 

capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others 

with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peacebuilding efforts 

around the globe. USIP operates on the ground in zones of conflict, most recently in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Colombia, Iraq, Kashmir, Liberia, the Korean Peninsula, Nepal, Pakistan, the 

Palestinian Territories, Nigeria, Sudan, and Uganda. 

The Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding focuses on the role of 

media throughout the conflict cycle: preventing media incitement to violence, protecting media 

from abuse during conflict, and empowering sustainable peacebuilding efforts in postconflict 

situations. The Center conducts research, develops programming across all forms of media, and 

promotes cooperation and information sharing among policymakers, experts, media actors, 

and peacebuilding practitioners. For more information, see www.usip.org/programs/centers/

media-conflict-and-peacebuilding. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 32 9/30/11 9:51:3
 33

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

Notes

1. The authors wish to thank the many people who helped to create this report. The following pages draw 

heavily on the wisdom and experience shared by the participants at the 2010 Caux Workshop, “Evaluating 

the Impact of Media Interventions in Conflict Countries,” listed by name in Appendix 2. Daniel Bruce 

provided invaluable input on the subject of indicators. And finally, this report could not have been completed 

without Libby Morgan’s expert copyediting and helpful suggestions on content.

2. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Prevention, “2010 Conflict Barometer,” University of 

Heidelberg, 2010, www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2010.pdf.

3. “Mediademocracy,” “medialism,” “mediapolitik,” “mediacracy,” and “teledemocracy” are a few catchy terms 

used by journalists, politicians, and policymakers to refer to the increasing centrality of media in governance 

and society. Eytan Gilboa, “Media and International Conflict,” in The Sage Handbook of Conflict 

Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. J. G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey 

(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 596.

4. The BBC World Service Trust employed Darfur Lifeline Journalists with funding from the Department for 

International Development (DFID) and Christian Aid. 

5. Such outlets included Radio Televizija Beograd and the largest newspapers. See Agneza Bozic-Roberson, 

“Words before the War: Milosevic’s Use of Mass Media Band Rhetoric to Provoke Ethnopolitical Conflict 

in Former Yugoslavia,” East European Quarterly 38, no. 4 (2004): 395-409.

6. Jeffrey Heyman, “United Nations Information Efforts in Conflict,” in Lifeline Media: Reaching Populations 

in Crisis—A Guide to Developing Media Projects in Conflict Situations, ed. Loretta Hieber (Berne: Media 

Action International, 2001), 56.

7. DFID, “Independent Evaluation in DFID,” Annual Report 2009, www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/evaluation/ev-annual-report-09.pdf; Andrew Natsios, “The Clash of the Counter-Bureaucracy and 

Development,” Center for Global Development essay, July 2010, www/cgdev/org/content/publications/

detail/1424271. 

8. “Monitoring” refers to the routine tracking of program performance. “Evaluation” refers to the episodic 

assessment of how well program activities are achieving program goals. 

9. Al-Hurra is an Arabic-language news and information service produced by the United States Broadcasting 

Board of Governors. See Committee to Protect Journalists, “Journalists Detained and Broadcasts Jammed 

in Libya,” March 1, 2011, www.cpj.org/2011/03/journalists-detained-and-broadcasts-jammed-in-liby.php. 

10. For example, in February 2011, the United States Middle East Partnership Initiative called for projects in 

Tunisia that work to “establish an independent, professional, and pluralistic media sector that provides 

information transparently and constructively.” Concurrently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) announced plans to conduct countrywide assessments of the media and 

communication environments in Tunisia and Egypt in order to guide media law and policy reforms that 

would best facilitate a smooth democratic transition. See UNESCO HQ , IPDC Secretariat, “Assessing 

National Media Landscapes in the Mena Region Using UNESCO’s MDIs” (project no. IPDC/55 

RAB/03), www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/IPDC/ipdc55_bureau_

mena_project_final.pdf.

11. Sina Odugbemi, program head of the Communication for Governance and Accountability Program 

(CommGAP) at the World Bank, describes this debate as an “explanation Olympics”: “There are experts 

who are tremendously certain the Arab Spring is all about social media. Others are quite sure it is all about 

the price of food. Still others say: it is the youth bulge, stupid.” Sina Odugbemi, “The Arab Spring: Welcome 

to the Explanation Olympics” (CommGAP blog, March 3, 2011, 1:16 p.m.), http://blogs.worldbank.org/

publicsphere/arab-spring-welcome-explanation-olympics. See also Clay Shirky, “The Political Power of 

Social Media,” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 1 (2011): 28–41.

12. See, for example, U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), Independent Media Development Abroad: 

Challenges Exist in Implementing US Efforts and Measuring Results (Washington, DC: GAO, 2005); and 

UNESCO, Media Development Indicators: A Framework for Assessing Media Development (Paris: UNESCO 

Communication and Information Sector, 2008).

13. See also Rajiv Shah, “The Modern Development Enterprise” (lecture, Center for Global Development, 

Washington, DC, January 19, 2011).

14. The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation is an alliance of development organizations such as the 

Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), USAID, Save the Children, and the Norwegian 

Agency for International Cooperation.

15. A counterfactual asks whether the intended beneficiary’s well-being would have improved even had the 

intervention not taken place. The technique relies on comparing what happened among the sample population, with a comparable population not subject to the intervention. While historians, psychologists, and 

economists have used counterfactuals in their research for decades, the use of counterfactuals in project 

evaluation is relatively recent. Shah, “The Modern Development Enterprise.” 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 33 9/30/11 9:51:3
34 

PEACEWORKS 77

16. DFID, “Working Effectively in Conflict-Affected and Fragile Situations Briefing Paper I: Monitoring and 

Evaluation” (DFID Practice Paper, March 2010), 10, www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/governance/building-peaceful-states-I.pdf. 

17. Laura Mottaz, “US Government Funding for Media Development” (Special Report to the Center for 

International Media Assistance, December 7, 2010), http://cima.ned.org/sites/default/files/CIMA-U.S._

Government_Funding_for_Media_Development-Report_0.pdf.

18. OECD, “Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities,” (Factsheet, 2008), 8, www.oecd.

org/dataoecd/36/20/39289596.pdf.

19. This model of media exerting powerful effects was undergirded by the broader modernization theory of 

development, introduced by such scholars as Daniel Lerner. Modernization theory posited that if structures 

in the “civilized” first-world countries were introduced into developing countries, those countries would 

soon reach modernity. According to this logic, once “modern media systems” were introduced into developing countries, they would serve similar functions as they had in their developed counterparts.

20. Gadi Wolfsfeld, Media and the Path to Peace (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Jennings Bryant 

and Dolf Zillmann, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum, 2002).

21. Ross Howard, The Power of the Media: A Handbook for Peacebuilders (Washington, DC: European Centre for 

Conflict Prevention, 2003); Monroe E. Price and Mark Thompson, Forging Peace: Intervention, Human 

Rights and the Management of Media Space (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002).

22. Jack Snyder and Karen Ballentine, “Nationalism and the Marketplace of Ideas,” International Security 21, no. 

2 (1996): 5–40.

23. Cees J. Hamelink, “Communication May Not Build Peace, but It Can Certainly Contribute to War,” Media 

Development 49, no. 2 (2002): 36–37.

24. In experimental research methods, the investigator exposes only part of the target population to the intervention, in a controlled setting, to rule out extraneous factors and understand causal processes.

25. Gilboa, “Media and International Conflict.”

26. Eric Brahm, “Latent Conflict Stage,” in Beyond Intractability, ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess (Boulder, 

CO: University of Colorado, Conflict Research Consortium, 2003).

27. UN, “Summit on the Millennium Development Goals, 20–22 September 2010,” www.un.org/

milleniumgoals.

28. Richard Blue and John Eriksson, “Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: United States 

Government Synthesis Report,” USAID, January 2011, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACQ941.pdf.

29. Daniel De Luce, Assessment of USAID Media Assistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1996-2002 (Washington, 

DC: USAID, Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination, 2003), http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/

exhibits/1481/PNACR756.pdf.

30. OECD-DAC, “Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management,” 2002, www.oecd.

org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf.

31. Cheyanne Church and Mark Rogers, “Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in 

Conflict Transformation Programs,” Search for Common Ground, 2006, www.sfcg.org/Documents/

manualintro.pdf; DFID, “Working Effectively in Conflict-Affected and Fragile Situations.”

32. The theories shown here were adapted from: DFID, “Working Effectively in Conflict-Affected and Fragile 

Situations,” 8.

33. For an example of an in-depth metrics framework for assessing an intervention’s ability to promote peacebuilding, see Michael J. Dziedzic, Barbara Sotirin, and John Agoglia, Measuring Progress in Conflict 

Environments (MPICE): A Metrics Framework for Assessing Conflict Transformation and Stabilization 

(Washington, DC: USIP Press, 2008).

34. Natasha Wanchek and Lynn Carter, “Indicator Gap Analysis: Media Draft” (report, USAID, 2010), http://

mediamapresource.wikispaces.com/file/detail/media+report+final+9-27-2010.docx.

35. USAID, “Master List of Standard Indicators,” 2008, www.state.gov/documents/organization/115255.pdf.

36. Mark Frohardt and Jonathan Temin, “Use and Abuse of Media in Vulnerable Societies,” USIP Press Special 

Report no. 110, 2003, www.usip.org/publications/use-and-abuse-media-vulnerable-societies.

37. Gordon Adam and Raj Thamotheram, “The Media’s Role in Conflict” (report prepared for the Overseas 

Development Administration of the British government, 1996), http://repository.forcedmigration.org/

show_metadata.jsp?pid=fmo:2204; Loretta Hieber, Lifeline Media: Reaching Populations in Crisis: A Guide to 

Developing Media Projects in Conflict Situations (Berne: Media Action International, 2001).

38. DFID, “Working Effectively in Conflict-Affected and Fragile Situations.”

39. What constitutes a large-scale project varies from donor to donor. USAID, for example, defines a large 

project as “one that equals or exceeds in dollar value the mean (average) project size for the operating unit” 

(i.e., implementing body). See USAID, “Evaluation Policy” (2011), www.usaid.gov/evaluation/. As defined 

by the OECD-DAC glossary of terms, impact evaluation (in contrast to monitoring and evaluation, which 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 34 9/30/11 9:51:3
 35

Evaluating media interventions in conflict countries

assess whether program targets have been met) measures the “results that lie beyond immediate outcomes or 

sphere of an intervention and influence the intensity, shape or likelihood of a conflict.”

40. The exigencies of conflict sometimes accelerate project development deadlines. Thus, if a project is deployed 

to respond to an immediate crisis, there may not be time or resources to adequately develop baselines or 

project monitoring plans during the proposal phase.

41. A monitoring plan (also called a performance monitoring plan) is a tool that project implementers and evaluators use to plan and manage how they will collect data used to assess the performance of a particular project.

42. “Long-term” refers to follow-up evaluations conducted months or years after the project’s conclusion. The 

precise timing of long-term evaluations depends on the project in question. See also J. P. Connell and A. C. 

Kubisch, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts (Washington, 

DC: Aspen Institute, 1995).

43. OECD-DAC, Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities. 

PW77_interior_3a.indd 35 9/30/11 9:51:3
PW77_interior_3a.indd 36 9/30/11 9:51:3
About the Inst

itute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan 

institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to 

help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, promote postconflict 

peacebuilding, and increase conflict management tools, capacity, and 

intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering 

others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe. Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, DC • 

George E. Moose (Vice Chairman), Adjunct Professor of Practice, The 

George Washington University, Washington, DC • Judy Ansley, Former 

Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor under 

George W. Bush, Washington, DC • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in 

Residence, American University, Washington, DC • Chester A. Crocker, 

James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC • Kerry Kennedy, 

President, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, 

Washington, DC • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, 

LLC., Las Vegas, NV • Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor 

of International Relations at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA • 

John A. Lancaster, Former Executive Director, International Council on 

Independent Living, Potsdam, NY • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA • Judy Van Rest, Executive Vice 

President, International Republican Institute, Washington, DC • 

Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on 

Civil Rights, Washington, DC Members Ex Officio

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor • James N. Miller, Principle Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy • Ann E. Rondeau, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, 

National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, President, 

United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

PW77_cover3a.indd 3 10/3/11 1:51:0
In a tight global economy, international development actors face 

growing pressure to improve evaluation. Evaluators of media interventions in conflict environments face special challenges: collapsed 

timelines, fluid conditions, and travel constraints. Recognizing this, 

thirty-four donors, implementers, and academics, all experienced 

in media initiatives in conflict environments, met in December 

2010 in Caux, Switzerland, to improve evaluation of media’s impact 

in ameliorating conflict. This report reviews the state of the art in 

evaluating media interventions in conflict and outlines the Caux 

Guiding Principles, established during the workshop. It stresses 

better evaluation as critical to media’s usefulness in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

Peaceworks • October 2011 • no. 77

Related Links 

■ Media in Fragile Environments by Andrew Robertson, Eran Fraenkel, 

Emrys Schoemaker, Sheldon Himelfarb (2011)

■ Afghanistan Media Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges for Peacebuilding

by Eran Fraenkel, Emrys Schoemaker, and Sheldon Himelfarb (Peaceworks, 

December 2010)

■ Crowdsourcing Crisis Information in Disaster-Affected Haiti by Jessica 

Heinzelman and Carol Waters (Special Report, October 2010)

■ Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics by Sean Aday, Henry 

Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman 

(Peaceworks, September 2010)

■ Advancing New Media Research by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, 

and John Sides (Special Report, September 2010)

■ Preventing Media Incitement to Violence in Iraq by Theo Dolan (Peace Brief, 

April 2010)

■ Media and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan by Sheldon Himelfarb (Peace Brief, 

March 2010)

United States Institute of Peace • 2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • usip.org 

PW77_cover3a.indd 4 10/3/11 1:51:0