Evaluation of the Southern and Eastern Africa Regional Centre for ...

of regional collaboration itself. The project document for this phase states- ‘thedevelopment of a truly regional Masters’ is the key focus but does not justify why thisis needed. The application draws on the 2001 evaluation to justify ‘institutionalisationof regional cooperation’, but without exploring why this is required. The‘Constitution’ document for SEARCWL, also only states ‘it should take theopportunity to create a truly regional programme’, but again the end is not identified,nor the means to get there.Underpinning all of the above points, the programme documents reflect theexplicitly academic role of the centre. Even this emphasis, however, assumes thatacademic activities will develop the discipline. The critical link here is, of course, thewider assumption that the discipline – both through the course and academicdevelopment- will lead to legal and social status improvement. SEARCWL ofcourse cannot be at any fault for conceiving themselves as an academic centre whoseprimary function is to develop a regional Masters programme. On the contrary, thisemphasis on its teaching and educational mandate and objectivity and independencecan be considered a valuable if not necessary commodity in the politically unstablecontext that has characterised Zimbabwe. Nonetheless, in view of the Programme’sdevelopmental goals the Evaluation Team considers it is important to evaluatewhether the gaps between the course and research in relation to broader desiredimpact have been anticipated and dealt with by SEARCWL. It is therefore surprisingthat the issue of how the course was intended to bring about development orimproved status of women is an omission in the programme documents.1.2.3 Summary of previous evaluations and mid-term reviews (MTRs)The SEARCWL’s work has been evaluated several times. Evaluations took place in2001, 2007, and most recent mid-term review in 2010. The MTRs and evaluations aregenerally very positive to the Master’s in Women and the Law (MWL). There aresome useful findings. There is useful mention of the recommendations for analumnae association suggested by students and also for information disseminationabout the course, amongst others. Contribution of graduates is mentioned but is notsystematically presented, nor how representative it is of the graduates. Furthermore,there is neither discussion of the assumptions highlighted nor the role of the Centreitself, nor the discipline of women’s law. Reference is made to some graduate studentobservations that they thought the Centre could be more active in acting as a legaladvisor to organisations but this does not lead to exploration of impact. These areparticularly interesting because they all could form activities that potentially harnessadded value beyond the Master’s course itself. The 2007 evaluation, as stated, alsodid not pick up on the issue of broader impact and means to achieve this. The 2010MTR, in line with previous evaluation, alluded to the contribution of the Centre as‘substantial’. It also suggests the Centre is a ‘true regional hub’ and with a genuineregional character. The discussion about the desirability or purpose of being regionalis again omitted.But what is different in the findings of the 2010 MTR is that by way of conclusionsome allude to areas that could contribute to broader impact in terms of growing itslinks with employers and former graduates in particular and in better publicity anddissemination in an overall finding. What is particularly relevant for the current15