In their evaluations, evaluators seek to do both ‘good’ evaluations as well as to do good in evaluation. The former (doing good evaluation) requires ‘knowing the basics’; but despite how common that phrase is, the ‘basics’ can be anything but basic. A good evaluation framework, theory, methodology, report, or strategy in one context can fall short in another.
The latter (doing good in evaluation) refers to the fact that evaluators are often committed to broadening, elevating, and advancing the quality of programs, policies, and services through practice. It is together that we often seek to do this by challenging old ways of thinking, introducing innovative evaluation techniques, and practicing effective allyship while adhering to CES Competencies and Ethical Guidance.
Ironically, these two things—doing good evaluation and doing good in evaluation—don’t always pair seamlessly. At the everyday, oft-mundane level of doing evaluations, which often have defined work plans, clearly defined questions, clear goals, and other ‘basics’ laid out, it can be difficult to go ‘beyond’ those basics to ask questions about topics aligned with our values. These include:
How, when, and why, then, can we push the boundaries of ‘doing good evaluation’ beyond the basics to include the cutting edge in these areas? By embracing the tensions and resonances of ‘doing good evaluation’ and ‘doing good in evaluation,’ we challenge delegates to think deeply and critically about (1) the things they take for granted as ‘evaluation basics’; (2) to go beyond those basics by getting creative, in pushing the field forward, and (3) thinking about transforming evaluation practice—and how, why, when, and where we can most effectively do this.
Here are the sub-themes:
We might assume that ‘the basics’ of evaluation are the same for everyone, but this is often not the case. The ‘basics’ mean different things to different people and can vary across contexts and sectors. This sub-theme asks: what does knowing ‘the basics’ mean to you in your evaluations and the contexts in which they unfold? How do various contexts shape what qualifies as ‘good’ evaluation questions, common sense, or frameworks? How do we conduct our different lines of evidence well, ethically, and in alignment with best practices? How do we ensure the processes and products of evaluation best serve the needs of evaluation users?
This theme is intended to get delegates to think about what is needed to have a solid footing in evaluation practice, as well as to expose the key differences in what we all take for granted both epistemologically and practically.
Associated competency domains: Technical, Reflective
We typically have a well-defined evaluand, either because we work to define its boundaries, or it is defined for us by others. Discussions or considerations of equity, sustainability, or transformation are sometimes considered ‘out of focus’’ for evaluations supposed to be ‘practical,’ ‘quick,’ or ‘focused.’ This sub theme asks: when, how, why, and where do we push these boundaries? When should we be actively incorporating or advocating for principles of ecocentrism, social equity and dignity, and new approaches to evaluation? Are there ever times when this isn’t feasible or appropriate?
This theme is intended to prompt delegates to discuss resolving (or not resolving) the possible tensions and affinities between the ‘everyday mundane’ evaluation, which can have highly structured and modest goals, and the ‘cutting edge’ that pushes us onward to develop new definitions of ‘good,’ whether through new (and possibly radical) questions, methods, and so on.
Associated competency domains: Situational, Management, Interpersonal
Evaluators seek to, and have successfully transformed many things: evaluations, evaluands, the context in which those things work, the way that evaluation partners think, policies, frameworks, and so on. This sub-theme asks: how have evaluators transformed through evaluation practice, both in ‘little’ and ‘big’ ways? How far have we come as a field in making advances towards a more inclusive profession? Where do we still need to go, and how will this journey shape our notions of doing good (in) evaluation?
This theme is intended to, first, celebrate the achievements that we have collectively accomplished as a profession and a professional society; and second, think about the other two themes through a lens of how to best position evaluation and evaluators to influence our society in ways that advance both along lines of equity and justice for human and non-human beings, as well as conscientious planning for what’s to come.
Associated competency domains: Reflective, Situational, Interpersonal