Unfortunately, with technological advances, digital disinformation efforts and computational propaganda  present new and unique challenges to election observation. Identifying networks and connections around the creation, spread, and amplification of disinformation and hate speech in elections is particularly challenging. Online sources lack transparency, with content often spread via fake media houses, phony websites, or social media accounts animated by “farms” of hired users and boosted by automated "bot" accounts. 

In addition to building new partnerships to confront the challenge of disinformation in elections, pre-existing election networks, such as the Global Network for Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM) or the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation community, can elevate the issue of disinformation, build consensus around defining the challenges that it poses to electoral integrity, and develop best practices to counter it. 

• Develop research questions first, research designs second, and data collection methods and instruments third. To answer the questions that are most relevant for the context and program, research design and data collection methods should be selected to answer questions that are most important for the program measurement needs.

Evaluation of DRG programs can  identify and describe key results, assess or improve the quality of program implementation,  identify lessons that might improve the implementation of similar programs, or attribute changes in key outcomes to a program intervention.

There are several research and measurement tools available to assist practitioners in monitoring of activities related to information and disinformation. At a basic level, these tools support program and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) staff in performing an accountability function. However, these research tools also play an important role in adapting programming to changing conditions.