Democratic evaluation for the 21st century

Abstract

The evaluation discipline has long been put at the service of liberal democratic values. But contemporary evaluation practice is threatened by vested interests, western democracy is under stress and internationalization has propelled evaluation towards illiberal and patrimonial states. What is to be done in contexts where democracy is absent and/or evaluation has been captured by powerful interests whether globally, within countries or within organizations? Are existing democratic evaluation approaches still relevant? Is it time to try something new? This article reviews the evidence and recommends adoption of a progressive evaluation model designed to complement, update and renew existing democratic and social justice evaluation approaches.

An activity theory study of data, knowledge, and power in the design of an international development NGO impact evaluation

“…Therefore, if researchers or practitioners wish to promote more democratic forms of impact evaluation, rather than autocratic or bureaucratic ones (MacDonald, ; Norris, ), researchers cannot ignore power in data/knowledge work, managerial controls (eg, Bernardi & De Chiara, : 37–38), or local knowledge generation (Walsham & Sahay, : 11; Thompson, ). Evaluation may be “captured” by vested interests, bureaucratic, or neoliberal market forces (Picciotto, : 152), especially where mundane power dynamics operate expertly and silently. Blackler (: 732–733) advised CHAT researchers to take heed of Hardy and Clegg's () observation that power is best theorised as “the medium of collective action.” As such, practitioners and researchers can benefit from Blackler's (: 733) advice on how they influence clients or research participants.…”

“…In understanding this landscape and the representational products that populate it, critical perspectives on power and politics are required. These are diverse and incorporate power in relation to evidence (Eyben, Guijt, Roche, & Shutt, ), evaluation (Norris, ; Picciotto, ), information behaviour (Feldman & March, ; Markus, ), and development itself (Escobar, ; Gardner & Lewis, : 179). With the development 2.0 shift to more data and knowledge intensities, where “ideas,” “theory,” and “policy” are more significant than ever in poverty elimination (Mosse, : 1), our approaches to ideas, policies, reports, and data must acknowledge their power dynamics.…”

“…In CHAT, methods, data, information, knowledge, evidence, and results have more diverse genesis than in technical evaluation or DIKW. Therefore, the CHAT analysis speaks to concerns about the politics of evaluation (Norris, : 136; Picciotto, : 152–153), evidence (Eyben et al, ) and knowledge production (Gardner & Lewis, : 179). The two impacts and systemic contradictions are part and parcel of a data/knowledge‐intensive development 2.0 in which NGOs compete for funding and are under pressure to submerge or elevate different data/knowledge.…”

Evaluation With a Focus on Justice

“…The panel helped guide the data collection and reacted to findings (House, 2015). For other democratic approaches, see Norris (2015) and Picciotto (2015).…”

The politics of evaluation and the evaluation of politics

“…Robert Picciotto (2015) has argued that democratic approaches to evaluation depend on societies being democratically inclined. He contends that democratic countries are becoming less democratic and that only 45 percent of United Nations member countries are liberal democracies.…”