Insights and future directions for systems and complexity‐informed evaluation

Abstract

With the increasing maturity of systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) within evaluation, this issue of NDE provides case examples of contemporary application. This article identifies themes across case examples to identify emergent patterns and opportunities for the continued development of evaluation practices that draw upon STCS. Each article describes STCS and its applications within specific evaluation contexts. Our review across cases identified three themes:(1) the importance of setting boundaries around what is included and excluded from within the STCS field in a specific evaluation; (2) using STCS concepts and theories to enhance program and evaluation theory, and (3) broadly drawing upon STCS to support changes in systems and develop capacity within organizations. While these implications show some promise for systems and complexity informed evaluation, they, more importantly, underscore the need for deeper engagement with STCS theories and methods while simultaneously remaining accessible for evaluators.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Humanizing human rights evaluation: Integrating human rights principles to maintain methodological rigor, axiological commitments, and epistemic justice

“…Stepping back to the notion of complexity, the practice of systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) “within evaluation requires engagement with at least three areas of knowledge, STCS, evaluation, and the topic area(s) of the program or service being evaluated” (Walton et al., 2021, pp. 160).…”

“…160). Thus, I discuss these areas as they pertain to the theory and practice of human rights evaluation: (1) STCS, specifically through a “critical reflection to support innovation at the level of evaluation design and method” (Walton et al., 2021, pp. 163); (2) evaluation as a field, including the role of top‐down performance measurement—often under the guise of results‐based management—that is used by governmental and intergovernmental agencies “to exert control and punish poor performance” (Davies et al., 2006, pp.…”

Systems thinking concepts within a collaborative program evaluation methodology: The Hermes Program Evaluation

“…A full discussion of SOSM and the systemic methodologies that have been associated with it is beyond the scope of this article. Despite the fact that the SOSM has been the subject of various criticisms (see, for example, Midgley, 2000), we consider that taking these criticisms into account, the revised version of the SOSM recently presented by Jackson (2019) can be a good starting point and guide for the selection of systemic methods and tools that can be used in an evaluation (as Walton et al, 2021, argue, articles that illustrate the use of systems thinking theories and methods quite frequently do not discuss how the authors selected and aligned particular systems thinking and complexity science approaches to the contexts in which they were applied). For instance, depending on their purposes and the context of the evaluation, guided by the SOSM, evaluators interested in collaborative and participatory evaluation approaches might look for systemic methodologies and methods associated with the “pluralist” dimension of the SOSM (such as diverse soft systems approaches), while evaluators who are not interested in collaborative or participatory evaluations might be eager to explore systemic methodologies and methods associated with the “unitary” dimension (such as system dynamics, hard systems thinking or organizational cybernetics).…”

“…Despite the growing interest in systems thinking and complexity science concepts, efforts in the past were mainly focused on supporting practice whereas theoretical advancements have been frequently neglected (see Walton et al, 2021). Some of the most relevant theoretical proposals include, the works of Imam et al (2006), Reynolds (2006, 2007), Cabrera and Colosi (2008), Cabrera et al (2008, 2015), Hummelbrunner (2006, 2011), Williams and Hummelbrunner (2011), Reynolds et al (2012), and Williams and Van’t Hof (2014).…”

“…Despite a number of evaluators’ claims of having employed systems thinking concepts and methods in evaluation, these ideas have not always been put into practice in clear or appropriate ways (Gates, 2016; Reynolds et al, 2012; Walton, 2016). Furthermore, the gap between evaluation theory and practice remains (Christie, 2003; Christie et al, 2014; Miller and Campbell, 2006; Walton et al, 2021). This article contributes to understanding how critical systems thinking theory can contribute to practical cases, and illustrates how the practice can contribute to enrich the critical systems theory.…”