Preparation of this dissertation required the assistance and co-operation of many people. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to these persons for their enthusiastic contributions, and their warm encouragement.

Foremost, of course, I'm deeply indebted to my parents and my sisters, for their spiritual encouragement as well as financial support. This study could not have been possible without my classmates, who acted as the troupe for the Manfred-sanitary project of 2004. It was their different approaches to evaluation of their project that inspired me to explore more on the indices of evaluation. To Chidaura.I, Chipatiso.R, Gundura.P, Magocha.B, Marovatsanga.G, Mtukwa.T and Mukanga.F I would like to say thank you guys, not only for initiating the Manfred project but for allowing me to interview you.

To all students who sacrificed their time to answer my questionnaires, as well those members of the audience for the Manfred project, who allowed me to interview them -may the might God bless you. I wish also to express my gratitude to all Theatre Arts Department members, such as Ntini.B, Chitambire.K, Dhlamini. E, and Seda.O, for their contributions to this dissertation. I also revere all theatre practitioners who gave me a lot of information about Theatre for development. To these practitioners , including Stephen Chifunyise, Susan Haines and Dr McLaren, may the Lord God give you more blessings.
My particular appreciation is extended to my supervisor, Mr N. Chivandikwa, who shaped this dissertation to be what it is right now. Most importantly, glory be to the one behind the success of everything - the Almighty God.



Chapter 1
Introduction

1.0 Area of Investigation
This paper is an attempt to identify and analyze the indices, advantages, challenges as well as the role of evaluation of Theatre For Development (TfD) projects. This paper will examine the above in relation to The 2004 Manfred-sanitary TfD project done at the University of Zimbabwe by Honours part two students.

The students who carried out the Manfred-sanitary project seem to agree that their project was a success, yet they differ on why they would say their project was a success. Therefore, in order to expose and explain those various angles through which the students perceived their project, various indices of evaluation such as participation, use of popular theatre, process and many more will be identified and analysed. This will also help to show the various challenges that are associated with evaluation of TFD projects.

1.1 Justification
The researcher feels that indices of evaluation for TfD projects need further analysis. It also seems as if there are so many challenges that are associated with evaluation of TfD projects. Therefore, this paper will attempt to highlight the difficulties that are associated with various indices of evaluation.
This research has been motivated by the realisation that, all students who carried out the 2004 Manfred-sanitary project concluded in their logbooks that their project was a success. However, there seems to be differences on the way they explain why they would give such conclusions. It is this variation that inspired the researcher to explore more on the issue of evaluation. Therefore, there seems to be need for more systematic evaluation not only in University of Zimbabwe TfD projects, but also in all TfD projects in general.

Furthermore, the researcher feels that, there is need to explore the role and significance of evaluation of TfD projects. This is because evaluation is one other important step of TfD processes.

Lastly, the researcher chose The Manfred-sanitary project as a case study because, the project was not recorded on any electronic media. Since it appears as though this project was one of the few projects that attracted a lot of interest and attention in the last few years, it is the researcher's conviction that there is need for systematic documentation of this project, for further and future studies. However, it must be noted that this case study is not a standard TfD project because it was meant for academic purposes, but in this particular dessertation, it will serve as a case study of TfD projects.

1.2 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this research are to: -
Identify and analyse the various indices that were used in evaluating the Manfred TfD project and other projects in general,
Explore the challenges and advantages that are associated with the evaluation of TfD projects in general and University of Zimbabwe TfD projects in particular
Document information about The 2004 Manfred-sanitary TfD project.

1.3 Methodology
The researcher used both primary and secondary sources of information, to gather data for this research. Primary research is costly and that it may be biased especially when the interviewees lack the intellectual knowledge necessary for the subject in question or when they want to please the interviewer. Therefore, secondary sources were also used to validate data from primary sources.

1.3.0 Primary research
This involves extraction of data from its original context. It is crude data or first hand information obtained through interviews and content analysis.
1.3.0.0 Interviews
Students who carried out The Manfred-sanitary project were interviewed. In addition supervisors and community members of the Manfred-sanitary project were interviewed. Theatre arts lecturers and other theatre practitioners such as Dr McLaren, Chifunyise and many others will be also interviewed

1.3.0.1 Content Analysis
Since the researcher was also a member of the troupe for the Manfred-sanitary project, personal analysis and observation was used to bring to light the issue of evaluation. The researcher also participated in one other TfD project that was held by the Honours in Theatre Arts year two students who were doing the course, Uses of Theatre part 2.

1.3.1 Secondary Research
Information was also obtained from secondary sources. This helped to give information about past projects such as the Matapi, Laedza Batanani, Chikwakwa and many others. This method of data collection involved use of archival material, library research and internet research.

1.3.1.0 Archived Material
This involves documented information about various TfD projects in students' logbooks, reports and reviews.
1.3.1.1 Library Research
Published materials such as textbooks and newspapers were also used in gathering information about TfD.
1.3.1.2 Internet Research
The researcher also got information from the internet, especially information about evaluation as a universal practice or as it is used by social scientists.

1.4 Literature Review

There have been many contributions from different scholars on TfD. Scholars such as Kerr. D (1995), Mda. Z (1993), Mlama. P(1991), Kavanagh. M (1985) and many others concentrated much on the nature, structure and processes of TfD. Most of these scholars provide interesting evaluations of past projects, such as that of the Laedza Batanani by Ross Kidd and Byram in Mda (1993). However, this research focuses on evaluation of TfD projects alone.

The ideas of most of the above mentioned scholars provide an insight of what constitutes an effective TfD project, though there seems to be little systematic outline of evaluation indices. For example, Ross Kidd argues that;
"Culture is a viable process for enhancing human survival as a result, existing cultural structures can be identified and used to carry developmental messages and mobilized to encourage mass participation in the development process through the sensitive modification and adaptation of multiple functions" (Kidd. and Colletta: 1978:13)
The above statement encompasses three important points concerning evaluation of TfD projects. Firstly, the issue of "cultural structures", which Mlama (1991) termed "popular culture" provides the first and major index for evaluating TfD projects. Consciously or unconsciously there is a tendency of analysing the use of popular theatre (cultural forms of expression) when determining the effectiveness of a TfD project.

Secondly, there is the issue of communicating, "developmental messages" using those very cultural forms of expression. Lastly, there is the issue of mobilizing the community for, "mass participation". Analysis of other scholars' views would provide the same sentiments as above. It is these scholarly views about TfD projects that influence the evaluation of TfD projects. Whilst most scholars talk about TfD processes, nature and structure, one can draw a number of indices that are used consciously or unconsciously in evaluation. However, it seems no scholar has ever systematically analyzed these indices. Therefore, this paper analyses such indices of evaluation, like those implied in Kidd's statement.

The troupe members who both carried out and evaluated the University of Zimbabwe 2004 Manfred-Sanitary TfD project regarded this project as one of the effective TfD project. One member said, ".... It is one of the most successful TfD projects, since the 1989 Matapi project..." (Chipatiso: 2004, 16). The students who carried out this project, that is Chidaura.I, Chipatiso. R, Gundura. P, Magocha. B, Marovatsanga. G, Mtukwa. T and Mukanga. F and the researcher indicated in their logbooks that their project was effective. However, whilst they seem to agree on such a standpoint, there is a remarkable difference on the reasons why they would say so. For instance, Mukanga (2004) centred her explanation on the ability of the project to provide a conducive environment for community participation, whilst Magocha (2004) on the other hand, talks of the skit's ability to reflect the community's problems.

Therefore, it is these differences that inspired the researcher to probe the issue of evaluation. It seems as if there are so many angles through which a given TfD project can be perceived. This is evident in many cases. For example, Nhambure talks of meaningful development, in his analysis of the CASS-Amakhosi Bulilimangwe TfD project. In his dissertation Nhambure seems to be evaluating the project from the vantage point of Paulo Freire’s philosophy of problem posing approach to adult education, which emphasize participation of all people concerned.(Nhambure 2003:46)
If the same project was to be evaluated by someone else, it is not surprising that a completely different analysis would be given. For example, the processes of TfD such as those outlined by Kidd as outlined in Mda (1993:7), can be used as the basis for evaluation. Whilst those who outlined the possible processes of TfD never explicitly said anything about evaluation, these very processes imply that for a project to be effective there is need to follow certain processes. This is possibly true because it is argued that TfD is not an event but a process (Mlama: 1991:37). Therefore, when evaluating TfD projects, there is no one focal point from which conclusions can be made.

In a nutshell, this research’s main focal point is on the application of evaluation from a universal perspective. Scholars do evaluate but they discuss neither the indices that they use in evaluation or the challenges of the indices they have used in evaluating. Hence this paper is an attempt to apply evaluation as applied to many developmental programs by social scientists.

Chapter 2
Background of Evaluation and The 2004 Manfred-Sanitary TfD Project

2.0 Introduction
This Chapter will explore the definition, types and importance of evaluation, apart from giving a brief background of The 2004 Manfred-sanitary Theatre for Development project. The aim is to show that evaluation as a practice is not only restricted to Theatre for Development, but also is a universal practice, which can be or is important to any project.

2.1 Working Definition of Evaluation.
In simple terms evaluation means to ascertain or fix the value or worth of something. In other words, it is the examination of the effectiveness of an invention or project. Rossi and Freeman defined evaluation as the systematic application of social research procedures for assessing the conceptualisation design, implementation and utility of a project. (Rossi and Freeman: http://www.health.gov/environ/Casestudies/typeseval.htm) Whilst there are so many definitions of evaluation, this paper will define evaluation as the use of a number of indices (determinants of value), so as to come up with a solid conclusion concerning the effectiveness of a given project.

2.2 Types of Evaluation
There are so many types of evaluation, which are widely used by different people, in different parts of the world and for different projects. Whilst these types vary from place to place and from project to project or from evaluator to evaluator, they may be applied in Theatre for development. The five most common types of evaluation as documented by Falk and others (2001) are front-end, formative, remedial, process and summative evaluation. (Falk and others (2001):http://iet.open.ac.uk/plum/evaluation.html)

2.2.0 Front-end Evaluation
This type of evaluation typically occurs during the initial planning phase of a project. Falk and others (ibid) argue that it provides information about expectations and understanding of the proposed topics for the project.

This type can be described as the evaluation of what is there so as to start something new, or the initial survey before the planning of the implementation of a new project. This helps in providing the base from which to plan for the oncoming project. In Theatre for Development, this type of evaluation is a useful technique before proposing a topic or community to work with. By reviewing or evaluating previous projects, the animators will be able to know where to start and they will be familiarised with the challenges and obstacles they are likely to face.

2.2.1 Formative Evaluation
This one includes pre-testing, designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of materials or campaign strategies before the implementation. In Theatre for Development, it takes place during the planning stage not before planning as is the case in front-end evaluation, which may involve evaluating previous projects for purposes of planning an oncoming project.

Falk and others (ibid), argue that this type of evaluation helps to maximise the chance of success because it censors the problems while they can still be corrected. Apart from that, it helps in understanding why different outcomes emerge at the end of the project. In Theatre for Development at the University of Zimbabwe, it is common that students evaluate their strategies and plans so that they can determine the best plan or strategy for their project.

2.2.2 Process Evaluation
This is the examination of procedures and tasks involved in implementing a project, according to Falk and others (ibid). This can be also said to be the assessment of the steps that will be or were used in the project, in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. Process evaluation can be done during the planning or at the end of the project.

In University of Zimbabwe Theatre for Development projects, it is usual that the animators will analyse the processes they would have followed, so this is process evaluation. This is important because it helps to note the weaknesses or the strengths of either skipping or adopting certain processes of the project. For instance, students will need to analyse the impact of skipping or adopting the research stage of Theatre for Development processes.

2.2.3 Remedial Evaluation
On their internet article, Development programmes Falk and others (2001), indicate that remedial evaluation occurs concurrently with the project. Therefore, it is a constant review of the project procedures that begins once the project has been implemented. It focuses on determining changes that need to be made to the project, so as to remedy or improve the project.

As for the University of Zimbabwe Theatre for Development projects, remedial evaluations are the most prominent of all other types of evaluation discussed so far. After each and every workshop, the students will evaluate the workshop in their logbooks and they will suggest new ways of improving the future workshops. Therefore, in University of Zimbabwe Theatre for Development projects, remedial evaluation helps to ensure constant improvements of the project.

2.2.4 Summative Evaluation
The proponents of these types of evaluation indicate that, summative evaluation assesses project outcomes and impact. Therefore, there are two types of summative evaluation that are outcome-summative evaluation and the impact-summative evaluation. This two-fold type of evaluation is done at the end of a given project.

Outcome-summative evaluation is meant to determine the short-term results of a project. That is, immediate effects of a project on the target audience. For example, in Theatre for Development it can be the immediate action that the community/audience or the troupe would take, such as demonstrating or implementing what they would have agreed to do. It is important, because it shows the effectiveness of a Theatre for development project. It is the most desirable type of evaluation because it deals with the 'fruits' of a project that are immediate. Most evaluators give their conclusions in terms of the end results, that is why outcome evaluation is popular in Theatre for Development.

Impact-summative evaluation has been regarded as the most comprehensive of all.( Falk and others: ibid). It is comprehensive because it focuses on the long- term results of the project. This type of evaluation is more critical because it does not only assess the results of a project, but the impact as well. For example, if a project such as the Matapi Theatre for Development project led to renovations, one would question; were those renovations important to the community or did the renovations reduce accommodation problems or did they help in reducing poverty? This type of evaluation is therefore, costly because it involves extra-commitment on the part of the evaluators.

Whilst one can say that it is more comprehensive, it is not hundred percent comprehensive, because the impact often cannot be directly related to the effects of a project due to other external influences on the target audience that come over time. For example, in Theatre for Development immigration and emigration has great impact on the ability of a Theatre for Development project to bring change in the society.

In short, impact evaluations that are rarely done in University of Zimbabwe Theatre for Development projects are most probably common in donor funded or governmental projects. Impact evaluation should not be over emphasised because they may underestimate the effectiveness of a given project. For effective results, a number of these types of evaluation should be used.

2.3 Levels of Evaluation in Theatre for Development

A level of evaluation refers to the level along the project, at which an evaluation happens. In University of Zimbabwe Theatre for Development projects, the levels of evaluation can be directly related to the various types of evaluation outlined in the previous section. Therefore, one can argue that there are five levels of evaluation in Theatre for Development Which are; front-end level, formative level, process level, remedial level and summative level of evaluation.

However, it must be noted that these levels of evaluation though they may occur at various points along the Theatre for Development project, they may be done at the end of the project. For example, one may evaluate a project at a formative level, that is assessing the project's ability to implement the right strategies and the other may evaluate the same project at a process level, which concentrate on the assessment of the processes of Theatre for Development implemented. Apparently, the conclusions will be different.

These various levels of evaluation therefore, give birth to what can be termed indices of evaluation. Indices of evaluation are those aspects that are mainly considered for a conclusion to be made. The next Chapter will explore these various indices of evaluation such as ; process, outcome, impact and many others which were deduced, not only from the levels of evaluation, but from a number of interviews which were carried out.

2.4 Background of The 2004 Manfred-Sanitary Project

The Bachelor of Arts Honours in Theatre Arts part two students did the Manfred-Swinton Theatre for Development project, on the 9th of June 2004 at the Manfred-Hodson Hall rest place. This project was for academic purposes, meant to fulfil the Uses of Theatre course (HTHA 0060), called Theatre for Development. The eight students who carried out the project under the supervision of Mr Chitambire and Miss Ndlovu are; Mushangwe. H, Chipatiso.R, Mukanga.F, Gundura. P, Chidaura.I, Mtukwa. T, Marovatsanga. G and Magocha.B.

The planning of the project that started on the 13th of April 2004 led to a three week period of research, rehearsal and performance that ended on the 9th of June 2004. It was a project on the issue of hygiene and sanitation problems in the halls of residence at the university, a topic that had been previously tackled by Bachelor of Arts Level two students but with a lot of problems. So the project was meant to address the topic in a way that would see high level of community participation and a compatible group of people. As a result, Manfred and Swinton Halls of residence were chosen instead of attempting to work with the whole university community as was previously attempted with little success. There was need to alert the authorities about the situation in the halls of residence and to initiate dialogue between the students and the authorities, through a presentation of a skit that would reflect the community's problems, so as to find lasting solutions to the problems.

A number of processes were followed in this project such as the planning, research, advertising, rehearsals and the final performance. The final performance saw a presentation of a skit that featured a number of students doing a variety of activities in a flooded toilet. Whilst some students were washing their faces, some were shaving and others washing plates. The toilet's flushing system was now malfunctioning such that other students were resorting to using the library toilet, which is far away from the halls of residence.

This was followed by an emotional discussion in which the students were able to air their views and suggest solutions. At the end, the Dean of students promised to take the issue further and the project was abandoned since the students were now too emotional such that they began to sing demonstration songs. Due to this emotional discussion that marked the end of the Manfred-sanitary project, the animators who carried out the project concluded in their logbooks that their project was effective. However, as already noted in Chapter one, the students' evaluations differed on the reasons as to why they would reach such conclusions.

2.5 Conclusion

This Chapter outlines a number of types of evaluation that can be easily described as levels of evaluation in Theatre for Development projects. These levels in turn can be viewed as indices of evaluation. The Chapter also gives a brief background of the Manfred-sanitary Theatre for Development project that has been evaluated differently by the same animators who carried out the project. Therefore, the next two Chapters will offer a number of indices of evaluation which are, most likely the causes of the differences noted in the evaluation of the Manfred-sanitary project.

Chapter 3:
Indices of Evaluation and the Manfred-Sanitary Project
3.0 Introduction
This chapter will explore the various indices of evaluation as they relate to the Manfred-sanitary project of 2004. Some of these indices include; use of popular theatre, process, objectives, comparison, impact and result-oriented evaluations. Attempts will be made to examine the challenges of using some of these indices when evaluating TfD projects.

3.1 Use of Popular Theatre
The Manfred-sanitary project had extensive use of popular theatre. There was an extensive use of local cultural forms of expression to reflect the social and political ills of Manfred Hall. This was done so as to solve the sanitation problem in an environment where the Manfred hall residents participate in decision-making. This section examines the manipulation of popular expressive forms such as language, songs and dances, chants and slogans and many others.

3.1.0 Language
The troupe used a mixture of English and Shona. This was meant to increase community participation. TfD is meant to facilitate communication (Mda: 1993:45). Therefore, the use of popular languages (English and Shona) for the University of Zimbabwe community was intended to ensure that those who could not understand Shona such as the Ndebele people and non-Zimbabweans could be able to participate in this project.

However, the use of English and Shona was only done during the introduction part of the project. During the introduction of the project, Marovatsanga Gift was translating what the group leader Prosper Gundura was saying. For example, when Prosper said;
“We the theatre arts students have decided to join hands with you to solve this problem of sanitation”
Gift put it in rhythmic Shona that made it more theatrical than mere translation. He said;
“Isu vetheatre arts tati tibatane pamwe nemwi kuti tigadzirise nyaya
yeutano yanetsa iyi”
Mlama argues that one way of making the community participate in a TfD project is through the use of popular language. So the Manfred-sanitary project explored this aspect of popular culture so as to increase community involvement.

Despite the fact that the troupe used English and Shona at the early stages of the performance, as the project continued, there was more and more use of Shona. Hence, some Ndebeles and non-Zimbabweans who could not understand Shona were disadvantaged. Therefore, it is difficult to use language as an index of evaluation. This is because in a heterogeneous community, it is difficult for the troupe to maintain language translation through out the project. This is probably the reason why very few questionnaire-respondents mentioned language as an index of evaluation as shown on Appendix 1.

3.1.1 Singing, Drumming and Dancing

The Manfred-sanitary project started with a lot of singing, drumming and dancing. The dominant song was;
“Veutano, veutano vauya, vakomana gadzirirai nzeve”
(The health department has come listen to what they have)
This was accompanied by a hilarious kongonya dance. The drumming, which was poly-rhythmic allowed for free style movements such that the audience could easily join. Use of Kongonya dance has a long history as a form of mobilising people. For example, it was common during the pungwes of the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe. The dance has some sexual connotations that involve extensive use of waist movements. For the sexually active group, such as students, this is not only interesting but has a psychological effect. Use of popular dances and songs helps to catch the interest and arouse emotions of the community (Chifunyise interview: 07/03/05).

McLaren also argues that, use of songs and dances are indispensable in African TfD projects (Interview: 07/04/05). McLaren’s assertion is applicable to many African TfD projects. For example, the 1983 Murehwa project used Jerusarema dance drama - a local popular dance. In a Mberengwa CARE International sponsored, SSFD popular theatre project, there was also use of popular songs such as;
“Tamba mai Munyaradzi” (Video provided by O Seda: 2005)
This song is usually sung in rural beer halls accompanied by kongonya dance or free style. In this particular project as deduced from the video, the dance possibly prepared the community members for a participatory environment. Since people were participating in dancing, it was then easy for them to participate during the discussions.
.
In the Manfred-sanitary project the dances and songs helped to attract the audience. In an interview with Clever Chipumo, a Crop science part three student, who was a member of the audience for the Manfred-sanitary project, it was found that most people did not know about the project. However, the high turnout was due to the fact that the drumming and singing attracted them. Among the student-evaluators who responded to the questionnaire, no one mentioned song and dance as an index of evaluation. This is probably because most evaluators are not worried about what brings results. Songs and dances in the Manfred project were intended to increase participation (This will be discussed in Chapter four).

However, using dances and songs as an index of evaluation has got some difficulties. For example, it does not guarantee authentic community participation. Some members may participate during the dancing but this will not mean that they would be automatically willing to discuss developmental issues. As observed on the day of the final performance of the Manfred-sanitary TfD project, some members who were present during the dances left the scene before the troupe introduced the topic. This could be a sign of people who are only interested in being entertained by dances and songs, and not willing to discuss their problems.

3.1.2 Acting Style.

The performance of the skit was another way of holding the attention of the Manfred Hall residents. There was use of exaggerated gestures and movements, so as to parody the life of students in the halls of residence. For instance, there was an enactment of a student messing the toilet. His facial expression was more of a clown and when he used his own filth to write on the wall, the symbolic writing was so exaggerated and comic, but they were meant to depict reality in the halls of residence.

Such acting styles help to provoke people into thinking more about their life. In the case of the Manfred project, though people were laughing at these comic students, it was apparent that the reality portrayed provoked discussion that followed. Some members of the audience were responding directly to the skit, like in the case when one audience member said;
"Unozvionaka UBA ...Manje upenyu ihwohwu"
(Do you see it UBA... Is that life?)
Hence, it can be argued that the skit provoked people into discussion. McLaren also supports the assertion that the purpose of the skit is to trigger discussion. He says;
"A skit is a short targeted extract, which is meant to get the community membersparticipate" (McLaren: interview ibid).

About 25% of questionnaire respondents mentioned use of acting style as an index of evaluation. The probable reason for this relatively low percentage could be that, this acting style as explained above has got several weaknesses. For instance, if the troupe overemphasie comic acting in order to arouse laughter, there is a danger that the community members may not realise the message behind. However, this is not to suggest that the entertainment value of TfD must be neglected. In actual sense entertainment is very crucial in TfD projects. All the same, this is the major challenge of using acting style as an index of evaluation. A project could be successful in arousing laughter, but without succeeding in provoking people into thinking more about their reality.

3.1.3 Locality of the Topic

The Manfred-sanitary project explored the problem of sanitation in the halls of residence at the University. Sanitation has been a perennial problem at the university. The tour made by the troupe showed that, there were sewage waters around and inside some halls of residence. There were also heaps of uncollected baggages. At one point, the Students Executive Council wrote a memo to the Dean of students. The memo that was dated 24 February 2003 was titled "RAW SEWAGE VISITS MANFRED". This shows that the problem of poor sanitation was now a serious problem that required all members of the community to participate in solving it. Whilst the authorities were blamed for not repairing the system, some students were misusing the system. For example, they would deposit food leftovers in the sinks leading to system blockage. Therefore, there was need to bring these two groups together, so that they could solve this problem amicably. Mda argues that theatre is just a tool for communication (Mda 1993:67). Hence the Manfred-sanitary project was meant to facilitate communication between the authorities and students.

As shown on Appendix 2, the use of locality of the topic as an index of evaluation was only mentioned by two out of twelve of the questionnaire respondents. It is implied that if a given TfD project is dealing with a topic that is relevant to a given community, the probability of project's effectiveness increases. However, the problem of using locality of the topic, as an evaluation index could be that, treating a relevant topic does not guarantee that the community will benefit from the project.

3.1.4 Chants and Slogans
One troupe member argues that;
"The ability of the troupe to use jargon and slogans associated with students
helped to mobilise them" (Chidaura interview:10/04)
The use of students' slogans helped to give a sense of identity, unity and pride. There was frequent use of university students' slogan such as;
"Ahoy UBA! Ahoy USA!"
UBA and USA stand for University Bachelors' Association for male students and University Spinsters' Association for female students, respectively. The word Ahoy has got a long history and in Zimbabwe it gained popularity during the liberation struggle. During the liberation struggle it was used not only as a way of drawing people's attention, but as a way of encouraging people to unite. Since university students use this slogan frequently when they want to do something as an entity, its use in this project could be said to have aroused the same effect of community identity and a sense of nationality.
Whilst there is not even a single questionnaire respondent who mentioned chants and slogans as evaluation indices, popular theatre involves all forms of expressive forms. Chants and slogans are also popular expressive forms. Therefore, when evaluating TFD projects there is need to consider them if there are any in that given project. This will help to examine their impact to the effectiveness of the project.

However, such slogans as the above could force people into inappropriate action at times. At the University of Zimbabwe, "Ahoy UBA/USA" is a slogan that is frequently used to mobilise students to do demonstrations. Hence one would not say that student's response after the Manfred project was necessarily a result of this TfD project. Rather, it could be that they were used to the slogan as a call for a demonstration, so when they heard this call they wanted to do their usual actions. This is similar to a situation whereby one addresses Zimbabwean war veterans with the slogan "Pamberi nehondo". This would invoke war related feelings.

In short, Popular theatre in its various forms has got the power to create a participatory environment as well as ensuring the effectiveness of a TfD project. However, popular theatre as an index of evaluation has got its own weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses is that, it does not always guarantee positive or desired results.

3.2 Evaluation by Comparison

The Manfred-sanitary project has been compared with several other projects. Ethel Maqeda, a University of Zimbabwe Theatre Arts lecturer, says that the ability of the Manfred project to attract an audience and having relatively high community participation showed that it was better than other projects. (Maqeda Interview: 11/04). In this case she was comparing the Manfred project with the previous project done by B.A level two students. The B.A level two TfD project was about sanitation in all halls of residence, but it was done in the Beithall and it was perceived to have low community participation.

Florence Mukanga, one troupe member compared the Manfred-sanitary project with the 1996 Epworth project that failed to reach the final performance level though several rehearsals had been done (Mukanga: 2004). In another interview with a University of Zimbabwe a Masters of Philosophy student Kudakwashe Chitambire, it was discovered that most previous projects at the University could not reach the final performance. For example, the Avondale conservation project of 2001 was abandoned after some planning (Chitambire Interview: 11/04). For this reason, one can say the Manfred-sanitary project was probably effective because it reached the final performance though there was no follow up action.

Despite the fact that there is not even a single questionnaire respondent who mentioned evaluation by comparison as an index of evaluation, Stephen Chifunyise concurs with this study's findings, that comparison is another evaluation index. Chifunyise argues that, the reason why theatre practitioners recommend certain TfD processes is because they compare different TfD projects. He indicates that the comparison between the Murehwa TfD project and other previous projects caused the practitioners to use the Murehwa model, instead of the Chalimbana model in the 1984 Nigerian TfD project (Chifunyise Interview: 22/04/05). This was probably due to the fact that the Murehwa model appeared to be more effective.

Whilst evaluation by comparison allows evaluators to note differences between TfD projects, it has many problems as an index of evaluation. For instance, it does not reflect the attainment of the troupe's objectives. In the case of the Epworth project that could not reach the final performance, it is difficult to say, this project was ineffective compared to the Manfred-sanitary project. Since TfD is a process, the objectives of the troupe may be achieved during rehearsals and not necessarily after the follow up action. For example, if the troupe's objective is to arouse critical consciousness of the community members, the community may gain this critical consciousness before the final performance. However, if conditions are the same, for given TfD projects, evaluation by comparison can be another effective index of evaluation.

3.3 Objective-based Evaluation

One of the major objectives of the Manfred-sanitary project was to perfect a previous project which had been done by the B.A level two students (Already discussed in Chapter two). There was need to increase community participation. The troupe partly achieved this objective because, the final performance was done at the community's place and almost all groups of the community were well represented. For example, the presence of the Dean of students, representing the authorities, janitors, wardens and health workers, as well as a number of students is an indication of a participatory environment. The presence of the various groups of the community gave a good platform for discussions.

A relatively high percentage of questionnaire respondents noted objectives as an index of evaluation. The reason for this high percentage is probably due to the fact that almost all TfD projects aim to achieve something. Hence, if a project achieves its goals it can be said to be effective. As a result, many student-evaluators use objectives to determine the effectiveness of TfD projects.

On the other hand, objective based evaluation has got one major weakness. Most objectives are immeasurable. For example, the troupe for the Manfred project wanted to increase participation, but it is difficult to assess genuine participation. Seda, a University of Zimbabwe Theatre Arts lecturer echoes the problem of evaluating qualitative and quantitative TfD projects. (Seda Interview: 04/05) Whilst quantitative TfD projects can be assessed using numerical figures, qualitative projects such as the Manfred-sanitary project are difficult to determine the extent to which they would have achieved their goals.

Objective-based evaluation is centred on what the troupe was intending to achieve. This helps to measure the results of a project in accordance with what the troupe was intending to achieve. But, since there is little quantitative assessment of most TfD projects, objective-based evaluation is difficult.

3.4 Process-based Evaluation

The procedures followed in the Manfred-sanitary project followed those processes outlined by Mlama (1991). There was research, problem analysis, rehearsals and final performance (More about these processes will be discussed in Chapter four). Whilst the troupe failed to include the fundamental aspect (participation) of each stage, one can argue that the project was within the parameters of most TfD projects. It is widely accepted that TfD should be a process that deals with community's developmental problems. Chifunyise says,
"Theatre created within the community's developmental concerns becomes that community's major tool for mobilization for collective adoption of developmental strategies..." (Chifunyise Herald: 23/03/05).
In other words, the process in the Manfred project was only there to enhance the developmental concerns of the Manfred hall residents. McLaren, on the other hand also emphasises the point that university TfD projects are solely meant to equip students with TfD skills (McLaren Interview: 07/04/05). Therefore, this is probably the reason why students (the Manfred Troupe) only followed basic steps.

About 66% of the questionnaire respondents mentioned that they would examine the processes followed in order to determine the effectiveness of a TfD project. However, process-based evaluation is problematic because there is no blue print process that leads to an effective TfD project. What is only there are models. Models indicate that a certain project followed certain processes and it was effective. Due to the fact that conditions differ from place to place and from time to time there is no guarantee that a Murehwa model would be effective to a University of Zimbabwe TfD project.

Process-based evaluation deals with the various steps followed by the troupe in their project. Whilst assessing processes followed can provide good conclusions about a TfD project, it must be known that the processes followed do not guarantee positive results.

3.5 Result-oriented Evaluation

As shown at the end of the Manfred-sanitary project that students were beginning to sing demonstration songs and were now so emotional that a demonstration was inevitable, it could be argued that the project had tangible immediate results. Herbert Chimhundu, a Psychology part three student, who attended the Manfred-sanitary project's final performance said that, he was so touched by what he saw in the skit performance, that he began to hate the authorities for not rectifying the problems (Chimhundu Interview: 10/04). This suggests that the emotions of the students were probably stirred by this TfD project.

Results are a favourable index of evaluation because, "they justify the existence of TfD as a discipline" (Ntini Interview: 11/04). Analysing results helps to see the extent to which a given TfD project would have tackled the actual problems of the society. Thus, result oriented evaluation is more tangible than any other indices, most of the questionnaire respondents mentioned it as an evaluation index.

Despite the fact that result-oriented evaluation is used more frequently in evaluation of TfD projects, it has got one major problem. It is difficult to say that certain results are directly and solely a product of given TfD project. For example, the Manfred hall was closed for renovations three months after the Manfred-sanitary project was done. Interviews with troupe members showed that, they are of the opinion that it is their TfD project that led to the renovations. Yet the Deputy Dean of students says the renovation of Manfred was already in the pipeline of the authorities' plans (Chandauka Interview: 24/03/05).
Therefore, in such a case it is difficult to say whether or not the project contributed to the renovations of a Manfred hall. This validates Owen Seda's assertion that there are too many variables that contribute to change (Seda Interview: 04/05). Whilst in the case of Manfred Project it could not be argued that this TfD project helped to speed up the reaction of authorities, one cannot conclusively attribute the results to this TfD project.

Although results show more direct and tangible contributions of TfD, it is difficult to absolutely link results with TfD. However, results-oriented evaluation remains one of the common index of evaluation.

3.6 Impact-based Evaluation

In the Manfred-sanitary project, it is difficult to check the impact of the project, just as the case with many other TfD projects. For the Manfred project, the main reason why it is difficult to check impact is that, most of those students who attended the project's final performance either left the college or are no longer in residence. If the community were static, one would assess how the behaviour of the members was changed or moulded by the project, in order to determine the project's impact.

Most theatre practitioners do not seem to use impact as an evaluation index, but most social scientists use it. Impact implies the effect of something. For instance, if the Manfred-sanitary project led to the closure of the Manfred hall, the impact would
be considered negative for it has led to accommodation problems. The other way of analysing impact in the Manfred project would be by assessing how the project led to improvements in standards of living.

Chifunyise is of the opinion that impact evaluation is the duty of social scientists and is the most appropriate index of evaluation of TfD projects (Chifunyise Interview: 22/03/05). This is because it deals with the actual human transformation that improves standards of living.

However, impact evaluation ignores the processes of TfD that brings certain changes in an environment. If impact-based evaluation were to be the sole index of evaluation, the TfD discipline would be discarded as a developmental tool. This is because, this index of evaluation deals with subtle changes in human behaviour, yet these changes are affected by many other factors such as emigration and immigration.

Although impact deals with the contributions of TfD to the standards of living of the people, it is an index that is difficult to use. It needs a lot of experience in order to observe subtle changes of standards of living. Also impact examines what comes after the immediate results of a TfD project, hence ignoring the immediate contributions of TfD.


3.7 Conclusion

This chapter has explored a number of indices of evaluation, their advantages and their weaknesses in determining the effectiveness of TfD projects. Evaluation of TfD projects in most cases involves use of one or more of these indices of evaluation. Since TfD projects are regarded as popular activities, it is apparent that all the above outlined indices either work towards achieving community involvement or are a result of participation. For example, use of popular theatre is meant to create a participatory environment. Objectives, results, or process also include the issue of participation. Therefore the next chapter will deal with participation as a major index of evaluation.












Chapter 4:
Participation as the Main Index of Evaluation in the Manfred-Sanitary Project.

4.0 Introduction

This chapter focuses on participation in the Manfred project. Participation is being considered as a major index of evaluation. All the indices of evaluation mentioned in chapter three are either working towards achieving participation or else are products of participation. Participation is the organised efforts to increase control over resources and groups as well as movements hitherto excluded from such control (Wolfe in Goulet 1989:165). Therefore, participation of the community is important in any developmental projects. Mda (1993), argues that community participation is crucial in TfD and as a result, TfD troupes in most cases aim to achieve participation, but in other cases participation is applied to TfD projects as a means to bring development.

4.1 Participation as a Goal

Propser Gundura noted that the Manfred project was aimed at achieving collective participation (Gundura 2004:2). The Manfred-sanitary project was initiated as a remedial work of the previous project done by the B.A level two students. The overall goal was therefore, to ensure that the Manfred residents would participate. This is the reason why the first rehearsal was done in the Manfred common room. There were attempts to ensure community participation, though this could not be achieved, since students did not turn up for rehearsals, despite the fact that the troupe tried to advertise it extensively.

On the day of the final performance, the troupe managed to attract a relatively large audience through the use of cultural forms of expressions such as dances and songs and many others as discussed in Chapter Three. The audience went on to participate in the post-performance discussion. Achieving participation on the day of performance was considered a goal met for the Manfred-sanitary project troupe. Participation by the community members helped to reveal a lot of other problems, which were not treated by troupe members such as the issue of meagre payouts and hunger. However, it must be noted that this was achievement of participation at performance level only, whilst participation is something that needs to be achieved at all levels as many TfD scholars such as Mda (1991) encourages.

Mda gives an example of a project that had participation as a goal, that is the Laedza Batanani of Botswana. The Laedza Batanani TFD project was meant to overcome the problem of apathy and indifference to government developmental efforts (Mda1993: 18). Since lack of community participation was being perceived as a hindrance to development, there was need to mobilise people to participate in the policy implementation. Participation allows community members to get used to change since they would be participating in bringing change, hence there will be no indifference or apathy, as was the case with the community for the Laedza Batanani.

However, the use of participation as a goal in TFD is problematic. This is because, at times the troupe members may end up thinking that achieving participation is an end goal in itself and a sign of success. A good example of such a case is the 2005 Transport Theatre for Development Communication project done by the B.A Honours two and four students. The troupe invited other theatre arts students to become audience members. As a result, the audience was dominated by theatre arts students rather than by non-residence students, who are haunted by the transport problem.

At times "hiring" an audience may help to give confidence to the actual target members since they will see "other members" (hired members) participating. However, as for the above case, further survey done by the researcher, showed that there was an average of fifty people at each moment. Out of the fifty, thirty-five were theatre arts students who were invited to make the project a success. The rest was a fluctuating audience in which, a person would just stand for a few minutes before leaving. Under such circumstances where the troupe "hires" the audience, it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of the project using participation.

Furthermore, Susan Haines a Zimbabwean theatre practitioner argues that achieving participation is not solving developmental problems (Haines Interview: 05/04/05). This means that, there may be participation but without empowering the community. In the Manfred-sanitary project there was remarkably high community participation but it is difficult to conclude that the project was effective. This is because participation, does not mean that the community's problems are solved. Both the 2004 Manfred-sanitary project's troupe and the troupe for the 2005 Transport project celebrate achieving participation as if the projects managed to solve the problems at hand.

Although participation as a goal is a good index of evaluation, there are so many complications associated with it. Aspiring to achieve participation for its own sake is problematic because this does not help the community. Rather, in this case it only gives self-satisfaction to the troupe members.

4.2 Participation as a Means

In a questionnaire survey done, about 92% of the respondents mentioned that they would use participation as an index of evaluation. A few critical respondents noted that they would assess how participation was achieved at each stage of the project. In other words, these questionnaire respondents were saying that they would assess the use of participation in order to bring development. Mclaren in an interview argues that, participation in TfD may lead the community to take over the whole project. If such a thing happens, the community will be now controllers of their own resources as Wolfe in Goulet indicated in his definition of participation (Wolfe in Goulet 1989:165)

The Manfred-sanitary project was initiated within the parameters of using participation as means to bring development. The first rehearsal of the project was done in the Manfred common room. The troupe wanted to involve the community from the initial stage. Boal asserts that the community must be at the core of TfD project. This is what he calls "rehearsal theatre" (Boal 1979:37). However, in the Manfred project, this could not be achieved because the community members did not turn up for the rehearsals.

Despite the fact that one can assess how participation was used in a certain project to achieve certain results there are many problems that can arise from participation. For instance, in the Manfred-sanitary project the students' participation during the post-performance discussion was problematic. The students proved to be more powerful than the members who were representing the authorities, such that there was no more dialogue between the authorities and the students. The students were now dictating everything. Authorities (especially the Dean of students) were now afraid to say their thoughts since the students were so emotional that they could become violent any time. However, McLaren is of the opinion that participation should empower the majority (Interview: 07/04/05).

Though participation is important to the process of development, when there is an imbalance of power between those who should solve the problem amicably, there would be communication breakdown. The group with more power at any given time (be it the authorities or the majority), would use their influence to make their ideas accepted. This brings us to the Deputy Dean of student's remarks, which he made on the day of the final performance of the 2005 Transport Theatre for Development Communication project;
"When a person is in a problem, you tend to see the problems your own way" (Mr J. Chandauka comments: 13/04/05).
As a result, the influential group would end up imposing their ideas. However, in TfD different groups of the community ought to reach a consensus. Freire (1969:44), talks of conscientisation for all groups involved in education. In the case of the Manfred-sanitary project, it is difficult to say the students were conscientised because there was little self-assessment. The students were just blaming the authorities, without re-examining their contributions to the sanitation problem.

Participation as a means to bring development appears to have numerous problems. Therefore, the rest of this section will be dedicated to various levels of participation that can be used as a means to bring development such as research, analysis level and many others.

4.3 Participation at Research Level.

The Manfred project troupe did not do a lot of research to find the community's problems. The troupe concluded that since they are also part of the university community, they are a good source of information. Marovatsanga, a troupe member argues that the troupe just took the problems upon themselves.

According to Kidd and Byram (1981: 28), research is a process of listing people's knowledge, attitudes and situations. Hence in order to reflect the community's situation truthfully, there is need to involve community members during the research stage of TfD. This helps to avoid a situation whereby the troupe members decide on behalf of the community. Boal (1979:137) argues that, the community should be the decision-makers. This is the first stage of empowering the community.

However, the major challenge of using participation at research level as an index of evaluation is that, participation may just end at this level. If participation ends at research level, it is not enough. In a situation where participation is a means to bring development there should be at least community participation at all levels.

4.4 Participation at Problem Analysis Level
The analysis of the data which was collected from the troupe members was done without involving the community. The Manfred project troupe members were rushing to meet the due date set by the Department of Theatre Arts, for the project's final performance. As a result there was not enough time to invite the community members for the data analysis.

Mlama (1991: 63) encourages group discussions in order to analyse the various problems which would be affected the community. Participation at data analysis level helps to ensure that there would be no misrepresentation of community's problems. In the Manfred-sanitary project the troupe interpreted the hygiene problem as due to authorities' negligence. This is depicted in the skit in which all toilet systems were malfunctioning. There was also depiction of a frustrated student who uses his own hand as a tissue, because the authorities are not supplying tissues. However, in some halls of residence, some students were vandalising the properties. Perhaps, this information could only have been found if there was collective data analysis, with all members of the community available, such as the health workers, students and authorities.

In spite of all the benefits that can be obtained from collective data analysis, there are so many problems associated with using this level of participation as an index of evaluation. For example, it is difficult to gauge the final outcome of a project. A project with high participation at this level is potentially effective.

4.5 Participation at Performance Level
The Manfred-sanitary project had two types of performances. The first type was the rehearsal performance and the second was the final performance.

4.5.0 Rehearsal Performance

Students (the troupe) noted in their logbooks that the first workshop that was done in the Manfred lower common room was an attempt to rehearse with the community. However, only six Manfred hall residents attended the rehearsal, but they refused to take part in the rehearsals of the skit. Probably, these students had a lot of other things to do.

McLaren argues that in order to empower the majority, the troupe ought to give away the performance to them. He also mentioned an example of a TfD project in which community members were empowered to such an extent that they took over the process of play creation. The Kamlongela project of Tanzania is a case in point (McLaren Interview: 07/04/05). Boal (1979), as already said, encourages community involvement during the rehearsals, that is "rehearsal theatre". This helps in bridging the gap between the troupe and the community, and it helps to ensure that community members decide on their own, what they what to communicate to the authorities or to other members of the community.

In the Manfred-sanitary project the gap between the troupe, the authorities and the majority was not resolved. This is probably the reason why the students were not in a position to accept their responsibility for their problems. Most probably, if they had been involved in the rehearsals they were going to gain some critical consciousness.

It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of a TfD project using participation at rehearsal level because the community may participate for personal benefits. For example, if the Manfred project troupe had some incentives, the Manfred residence would have participated very well in the rehearsals.

4.5.1 Final Performance
Community members for the Manfred project did not actively participate in the presentation of the skit. Since the community members were not coming for the rehearsals, it was difficult to include them on the day of final performance. The audience members were not participating on the acting part of the performance, as many theatre practitioners would want it to be.

Kidd (1975:5) asserts that, it is difficult to involve people at the end if they have never been included in the action and dialogue in the play, it would be difficult to involve them after the performance. In the Manfred-sanitary project, the performance of the skit was done as if the project was for the Theatre Arts Department; hence several members of the community left the scene just after the performance. However, there were some members who were willing to take part in the post-performance discussion. Probably if the skit had included some of the members of the community this was going to attract more people than those who were present, because the project was going to look more like a "Manfred project" than a "Theatre Arts project".

Determining the effectiveness of a TfD project, using participation at the skit performance level is problematic because of many reasons. Ntini, a Theatre Arts assistant lecturer argues that, there is danger that people participate in a given project so as to gain something or to please certain dignitaries (Ntini Interview: 11/04). As observed from a video of the Mberengwa CARE International popular theatre project, there was overwhelming participation. However, since CARE International is known for providing food in rural areas, it is tempting to argue that people were only participating to please CARE International authorities, so that they would be given food. The same video showed that there were T-shirts that were being given to the people. In such cases, it is likely that some people would participate for personal benefits.

Therefore, participation at skit performance level has got so many problems. However, if there would be genuine participation at this level the project would be likely a success.

4.6 Participation at the Post-performance Discussion Level
A remarkable high level of physical and emotional involvement of the audience was seen after the performance of the skit on the day of the final performance of the Manfred -sanitary project. The students began to shout at the authorities before the facilitator, Gift Marovatsanga, initiated the discussion. The students were blaming the authorities. For example, some students were saying that the University authorities are wasting money on other things such as renovating the Great hall whilst students are living under inhabitable conditions. The Dean of students who was present could not disagree or give any comments, because the students were likely to be violent. Some students were already singing a demonstration song;
"Heya he demo ratotanga!"
(The demonstration has begun)
This kind of emotional level was inappropriate for a TfD project. Theatre for development is meant to solve people's problems one can say a given TfD project was effective because there was participation during the discussions. If the members become only emotional without taking action that can lead to sustainable development, then that project cannot be said to be effective.

The other challenge of using participation at this level as an index of evaluation is that, it can be participation for personal benefits as discussed in the last section. In the case of the Manfred-sanitary project, Manners Chidunge an Economics part three student who dominated the post-performance discussion was probably doing it in order to gain popularity. This is shown by the fact that, it was towards elections. Students were campaigning for various posts for the Students Union and he was one of the people who were campaigning. Therefore, it is difficult to differentiate between genuine participation and participation for personal benefits.

4.7 Participation at Action Level
The Manfred-sanitary project had virtually no participation at this level. There was no follow up action by the troupe. This was due to the fact that once the students (the troupe) accomplished the final performance of the project, there would be no need for further action since they would have finished their examination.
In TfD projects, which are not for academic purposes, it is necessary that the community participate in the implementation of what they would have agreed on the day of the final performance. Follow up action by troupe members is also a necessary action to check or ensure the implementation of the agreed things.

It is assumed that, if the community participate at this level, the development will be sustainable. This is what Mlama (1991:ppreface) calls organic development. This kind of development is thought to be sustainable because it stems from the community's culture. However, in the Mwimwa TfD project, the community participated in the building of toilets but they never used them. The Mwimwa project was done so as to reduce the traditional "bush" toilets. During the discussions it was agreed that people should build toilets. Follow up action was done to ensure the implementation of what was agreed upon but the community members continued to use their traditional toilets (Maqeda Interview: 05/11/04).

Therefore, whilst assessing the effectiveness of a TfD project at this level of participation is necessary, it is difficult to assess people's behaviour. TfD should not only lead to action, rather it should change human behaviour so as to improve their standards of living.

4.8 Conclusion
Participation which is widely supported by Theatre practitioners and many other development agents, such Mda (1993), Freire (1969) and many others, is important in development because it allows for organic growth of change or acceptance of given developmental aspects (Mlama 1991). The issue of participation in development has been supported by many scholars and as a result, in University of Zimbabwe TfD projects there is a tendency at times to overemphasise participation. However, as explained in this chapter, there are so many problems that are associated with the application of participation to TfD projects. Thus, achieving participation at one level alone does not reflect the actual effectiveness of a TfD project. Rather, there is need to consider participation at all levels in TfD. Moreover, there is need to consider other indices of evaluation instead of evaluating a whole project on the basis of participation alone.










Chapter 5:
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
This Chapter is an exploration of the indices of evaluation, focusing on their advantages and challenges. The main aim of the study has been to examine evaluations done by the troupe of the 2004 Manfred-sanitary TfD project. The explanations given by the troupe members to their evaluations of the project were different, though they seem to agree that their project was effective.

The first Chapter is an outline of the research. It has been shown that evaluation is an area that has received little systematic analysis despite the fact that evaluation is frequently done either after or during TfD projects. A number of data collection methods were also outlined, so as to give the research a wide perspective.

Chapter two outlines the background of both evaluation and the Manfred-sanitary project. Various types of evaluation were identified; these include front-end, formative and summative evaluation, just to mention a few. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these types of evaluation were also analysed. The last section of this Chapter gives a brief background of the Manfred-sanitary project.

The major focus of this research is explored in Chapter Three. Chapter Three deals with the first six basic indices of evaluation. Popular theatre, objectives, process and results among other indices were identified and analysed in terms of their application to the Manfred-sanitary project. The advantages and challenges of using each of these indices were also discussed. The assumption behind these indices of evaluation is that, an evaluator may examine the effectiveness of a given TfD project using one or more of these indices of evaluation. However, in most cases these indices of evaluation do not guarantee positive results or the effectiveness of a TfD project.

Chapter Four deals with participation, an index of evaluation that has been considered a major index in this study. Due to the fact that, the TfD discipline is founded on the premise that community involvement is the best way of dealing with developmental issues, analysing participation is indispensable to evaluation of TfD projects. Different levels of participation were analysed, not only to expose the dangers of using a certain level of participation as the basis of evaluation, but also to give insight on the benefits of assessing participation at all possible level at hand.

Due to the fact that each TfD project has got its own objectives and the most important thing in TfD is to achieve the objectives, evaluators will have to consider these various indices of evaluation outlined in chapter three and four, in relation to the objectives of the project. This will help to ensure that the evaluator will not consider things that were not within the parameters of what the project was aiming to achieve.

Although this paper examines indices of evaluation separately, in practice it is difficult to analyse them in isolation. Therefore, evaluation of TfD projects is presented as a complex practice. The most important thing to note is that, all the indices of evaluation discussed in this paper are intertwined. These indices affect each other. If participation was not effective, at times this will affect the objectives or the results of the project. Therefore, it is apparent that a single evaluation at the end of a project is a sum total of a number of indices of evaluation, depending on individual perception of the indices of evaluation. Due to the fact that there are a number of complex factors surrounding evaluation of TfD projects, a single conclusion is reached after considering a number of indices. Most probably, this is the reason why evaluations of a given TfD project may have similar conclusions, but with different explanations. As a result, this is possibly the reason why the Manfred-sanitary project troupe members used different explanations to defend the assertion that their project was effective.

At the moment, it seems evaluation of TfD projects is not as critical and systematic as it possibly can be. It also appears as if there is a general tendency to generalise evaluations on the basis of participation and achieving objectives without examining the challenges that are associated with these evaluation indices or other possible indices of evaluation like impact. Thus, further systematic researches are needed in order to examine the role of evaluation before, during and after a given TfD project. Perhaps this will help to increase the appreciation of evaluation at all levels in TfD projects

Bibliography
Boal. A, 1979, Theatre of the oppressed, Pluto press, London
Colletta .N and Kidd. R, 1979, Tradition for development: Indigenous structures and folk
media in non-formal education, German Foundation for
International development, Berlin.
Freire. P, 1972, Pedagogy of the oppressed, Harmondsworth, Middlesex
Goulet. T, 1992, Development from within: Survival in rural Africa, Routledge,
London
Gunner. L, 1994, Politics and performance: Theatre, poetry and song in Southern Africa,
Witwatersrand university press, Johannesburg
Gunner. L and Furniss. G (eds), 1993, Power, marginality and African oral literature,
Cambridge university press, Cambridge
Kavanagh. M, 1985, Theatre and cultural struggle in Southern Africa, Zed books,
Toronto
Kerr. D, 1995, African popular theatre: From pre-colonial times to the present
day, Baobab books, Harare
Kidd. R, 1984b, Popular theatre conscientisation and popular organisation,
International Council for, Adult Education, Toronto
Kidd. R, 1979, Liberation or Domestication: Popular theatre and non-formal education
in formal education in Southern Africa, Education Broadcasting International, Toronto
Makumbe. J, 1996, Participatory development: The case of Zimbabwe, University
of Zimbabwe, publications, Harare
Mda. Z, 1993, When people play people; Development communication through theatre,
Witwatersrand university press, Johannesburg
Mlama. P.M, 1991, Culture and development; The popular theatre approach in Africa,
Nordiska Africanstitutet, Uppsala

Unpublished material
Nhambure. C, 2004, The role of theatre in development-communication,
Special Honours Dissertation
Kuruwa. B, 2004, Popular theatre as communication, Honours Dissertation
Chidaura. I, 2004, TFD logbook
Gundura. P, 2004, TFD logbook
Magocha. B, 2004, TFD logbook
Marovatsanga. G, 2004, TFD logbook
Mtukwa. T, 2004, TFD logbook
Mukanga.F, 2004, TFD logbook

Videos watched
Mberengwa CARE International sponsored, SSFD popular theatre project video provided by Owen Seda

Newspapers
Chifunyise. S, Theatre: "Vital part of development", in the Herald, 23 March 2005, p15

Internet Resources
Anonymus, December 1998, "An Educator' guide to evaluating the use of technology in schools and classroom", http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide/whatseval.html, 07 November 2004
Dieking. L, October 2001, "Types of evaluation",
http://swmuseums.httpmedia.co.uk/developmentprogrammes/ML1/eva/evalchecklist.htm, 13 October 2004
Falk, (etal), 2001, "Plum homepage: Development programmes - evaluation", http://iet.open.ac.uk/plum/evaluation/findings.html, 27 November 2004
Freeman and Rossi, 1993, "Types of evaluation", http://www.health.gov/environment/Casestudies/typeseval.htm, 23 October 2004












APPENDIX 1

Sample Questionnaire
This questionnaire seeks to find views of TFD student-evaluators about evaluation of TFD projects. It is an attempt to find those views that are mainly considered when assigning value (when evaluating) TFD projects. Your views are greatly appreciated.

DATE...................

1) Name...............................................................................................................
2) Have you ever been involved in a TFD project? ........................................
3) What do you think a successful TFD project is/should be like?
..........................................................................................................................
4) What do you think an unsuccessful TFD project is like or would be like?.......................................................................................................................
5) What aspects do you think should be considered when evaluation TFD projects? ...........................................................................................................................
6) Who do you think is the right person to evaluate TFD projects and why? .............................................................................................................................
7) If you have ever been involved in a TFD project, what do you think were your strengths and weaknesses if any?

Strengths
.............................................................................................................................
Weaknesses
.............................................................................................................................
8) Do you find it difficult to evaluate or give value to a TFD project?...........
9) If yes give reasons........................................................................................
10) Is it important to evaluate TFD projects? Give reason
...............................................................................................................................




APPENDIX 2

TABULATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Evaluation Index AND Total number of Percentage

POPULAR THEATRE

a) Language 25%

b) Songs and dances 0%

c) Locality of the topic 25%

d) Chants and slogans 0%

e) Acting style 25%

TOTAL 75%

COMPARISON EVALUATION 0%

OBJECTIVE-BASED EVALUATION 66.6%

PROCESS-BASED EVALUATION 42.6%

RESULT- ORIENTED EVALUATION 83.5%

IMPACT-BASED EVALUATION 0%

PARTICIPATION 91.6%

APPENDIX 3

Interviews with theatre students, audience members, lecturers and practitioners

Name of the interviewee Occupation Date Venue
1) Isaac Chidaura Troupe member 17/10/04 New Complex 1 F8
2) Blessing Magocha Troupe member 17/10/04 New Complex 2G89
3) Tendai Mtukwa Troupe member 18/10/04 Beithall
4) Remo Chipatiso Troupe member 18/10/04 Beithall
5) Florence Mukanga Troupe member 20/10/04 Carr Saunders O12
6) Prosper Gundura Troupe member 29/10/04 Beithall
7) Gift Marovatsanga Troupe member 05/11/04 New Complex 2G141
8) Clever Chipumo Audience member 11/11/04 New Complex 2 S132
9) Eric Mataure Audience member 11/11/04 New Complex 3 F 67
10) Manners Chidunge Audience member 11/11/04 New Complex 3 F
11) Herbert Chimhundu Audience member 13/11/04 New Complex 1 S12
12) Bernard Chiambiro Audience member 13/11/04 Beithall
13) Ruth Makumbirofa Audience member 16/11/04 Beithall
14) Kudakwashe Chitambire Mphil student 20/11/04 Beithall
15) Bekithemba Ntini Mphil student 25/11/04 Beithall
16) Ethel Dhlamini UZ Lecturer 27/11/04 Theatre Arts Office
17) Owen Seda UZ Lecturer 16/03/05 Departmental office
18) Stehpen Chifunyise Theatre practitioner 22/03/05 Kingston Head office
19)J Chandauka Deputy Dean 24/03/05 Student Affairs office
20) Susan Haines Theatre practitioner 05/04/05 Beithall
21) Dr Robert Mshengu Theatre practitioner 07/04/05 Chipawo centre