Moderator
- Indran Naidoo, Director, Independent Office of Evaluation, IFAD
Panellists
- Mita Marra, Associate Professor of Political Economics and Policy Evaluation, University of Naples “Federico II”
- Dugan Fraser, Programme Manager, GEI, World Bank Group
Is evaluation innovative and nimble enough for a rapidly changing world? Are innovations aligning with need? How do we bring about a systems-thinking approach for transformative change?
- There continues to be resistance to evaluation from those being evaluated. Equally data collectors can be resistant to share information to better inform evaluation. The evaluation field may need to consider its communication and knowledge management and sharing approaches.
- On the supply side, evaluations are sometimes required to fulfil a regulatory requirement, from a compliance perspective. However, there is a risk that this makes evaluation a mandatory process, limiting its overall use and impact. It may require nudging and soft-power measures, e.g. legislation that requires evaluation after a certain amount of years from introduction, which may help in the institutionalization of evaluation as part of public policymaking.
- On the demand side, there is increased demand for evaluation to support evidence‑informed decision-making. Social impact assessment, in public and private sector organizations, environmental, social and governance and impact investing are also demanding better data-driven evaluation.
- Innovating evaluation will require addressing and recognising challenges such as political polarization, new and emerging crises, complex theories of change and multiple sources of evidence and actor viewpoints.
- This will require a greater focus on systems-thinking, backward and forward linkages, and reflections on “reformongering” and the positionality of the evaluator to grasp emergence and embeddedness - while staying principled. It will need evaluators to step-up and engage meaningfully with the decision makers to ensure political will and recognition of the evaluative evidence to ensure evaluations lead to change and are used.
- The structure of monitoring and evaluation systems, especially within the public sector, shows the level to which monitoring has been mainstreamed, possibly due to cultures of accountability and control within public sector institutions, while evaluation remains on the margins and external.
- Evaluation isolation has led to less cooperation and information sharing and, as a result, less innovation. The pandemic forced evaluation to be more innovative, and increases in rapid evaluations illustrate this to a degree. However it remains compliance‑oriented, a ritual framed around a fear of failure, with structures such as the DAC criteria restricting rather than allowing broader examination and understanding.
- Systems-thinking requires us to be respectful of the system and take time to understand the systemic and individual roles. Evaluation needs to take a “theories of use” approach, acting as a learning partner. A key contextual barrier is a widespread absence of authentic curiosity.
Conclusion
Evaluation should be bold/ brave and not step away from difficult discussions. Evaluation has a key role in challenging policy and decision-making. Evaluation needs to take a systems‑thinking approach, understand systems and the actors in the systems, and be respectful whilst also recognising the challenges and constraints of evaluative approaches and that it is a political process and needs to be challenging.
It is important to consider failure: "Experts themselves can get it wrong; we have to keep trying".
Associate Professor of Political Economics and Policy Evaluation, University of Naples “Federico II”
We have to reflect on the mistakes we make and not only look to success.
Director, Independent Office of Evaluation, IFAD
Too often, evaluation is part of a compliance ritual that institutions undertake. To cross boundaries, evaluation has to become a genuine learning partner.
Programme Manager, GEI
