"The evaluation stories revealed in the project illustrate the value of a positive approach. They emphasize the evidence of what works and/or might work and is worthy of being continued, enlarged or modified. This can be contrasted with evaluations that are focused mainly on the technical problems and deficiencies present in most interventions. This type of approach has been shown to be highly relevant in getting beyond defensive and suspicious attitudes, and instead promoting a constructive focus on possible solutions. For example, the evaluation of the initiative Strengthening the Abilities of Indigenous Women to Set up and Have a Bearing on the Implementation of Public Policies (Colombia) validated many of the approaches adopted, and indicated the potential that could be developed by having an additional training to the objectives outlined originally in the project. In addition to that, in evaluations with a positive approach, evaluators usually develop a close relationship with the actors of the intervention, understanding them and supporting them. The evaluators' task in these cases is not limited to indicating what to be modified. Many times local actors regard this as evaluators demonstrating ‘commitment’ to the project and its future. Participation of the actors in the collection and use of the evaluation data is a powerful way of including users and beneficiaries. This allows participants to get involved and understand the data better. An evaluation characterised by a collaborative approach leads participants to take responsibility for the evaluation and then for the change and transformation that follows. In this way, active participation in the evaluation process helps to develop better understanding of evaluation and contributes to commitment and use. This is illustrated by the participatory evaluation in Costa Rica, in which regional technical teams were involved and deeply interested in getting to know how the evaluated program worked in their area. In contrast, the higher authorities limited their participation to approving the evaluation. In this way, recommendations at regional and local levels were applied soon after the evaluation finished, whereas general recommendations —dependent upon the higher authorities— have not yet been applied." (Introduction, page 21-22)