The review offered several important conclusions. First, while there was no core ST/CS "canon," certain terms appeared frequently across the reviewed texts. Second, even as these ideas are gaining traction in academic and practitioner communities, most are concentrated in a few journals. Finally, articles on ST/CS remain largely theoretical illustrating the need for further study and practical application. Given the challenge posed by the next phase of development, gaining a better understanding of ST/CS ideas and their use may lead to improvements in the implementation and practice of the Sustainable Development Goals.

No abstract

Problems of conventional evaluation models can be understood as an impoverished 'conversation' between realities (of non-linearity, indeterminate attributes, and everchanging context), and models of evaluating such realities. Meanwhile, ideas of systems thinking and complexity science -grouped here under the acronym STCSstruggle to gain currency in the big 'E' world of institutionalised evaluation. Four evaluation practitioners familiar with evaluation tools associated with STCS offer perspectives on issues regarding mainstream uptake of STCS in the big 'E' world. The perspectives collectively suggest three features of practicing systemic evaluation: (i) developing value in conversing between bounded values (evaluations) and unbounded reality (evaluand), with humility; (ii) developing response-ability with evaluand stakeholders based on reflexivity, with empathy; and (iii) developing adaptive rather than mere contingent use(fulness) of STCS 'tools' as part of evaluation praxis, with inevitable fallibility and an orientation towards bricolage (adaptive use). The features hint towards systemic evaluation as core to a reconfigured notion of developmental evaluation.

All evaluation approaches have to address questions about their legitimacy, validity, relevance and usefulness. As the complexity of interventions is more widely acknowledged, impact evaluation appears to be especially vulnerable to these challenges. This article explores the potential of the systems field to address these vulnerabilities. The systems field is conceptualised as understanding interrelationships, engaging with multiple perspectives and reflecting on where boundaries are drawn in terms of those interrelationships and perspectives. This article argues that achieving a balance between these three elements is critical. An emphasis on interrelationships is likely to bring only limited (prosaic) benefits to impact evaluation as a whole. On the other hand, a strong emphasis on perspectives and boundaries could result in profound changes to the way in which impact evaluation is conceived and delivered. In particular, it could change the nature of the relationship between the evaluator and key stakeholders, especially funders and managers of interventions.

The distinctive design of this study further emphasises the flexibility of IPA, while simultaneously showing fidelity to the core principles underlying the research methodology.