IDEAS - Evaluation for transformational change

Evaluators have an important role on promoting cross-cutting reflections to address transformative urgencies and pave the way to the achievement of the SDGs. The SDGs presented to the world a vision of the future, formulated as a network of interconnected areas which demand systemic ways of looking, for commissioners, stakeholders and, in special, for evaluators. Chaired by Eddah Kanini Karijo, leader of the Gender and Equity-Focused Evaluation IDEAS Thematic Interest Group (GEFE-ITIG), this panel will present thoughts and experiences that address gender transformative approaches in evaluation. With this panel, IDEAS and EvalGender+ proposes to explore how gender and equity could be taken as a beacon to illuminate meaningful interconnections between the various targets and goals of the SDGs and identify leverage points for the transformations required. Gender transformation is slowly building global momentum and evaluations and evaluators need to develop skills and competencies to ensure they can assess progress and challenges of projects and programmes, but also capture excellence. The panel starts by presenting the work carried out by the GEFE-ITIG, then inquiries about how useful a systems approach can be to support Gender Transformative Evaluation for the SDGs. Then, capacity development efforts in gender transformative evaluation captured through an EvalGender+ supported project are brought to the table to illuminate potential contributions to mainstream Gender in evaluation. Based on a work done for a Peer-to-Peer project on capacity building in Africa, an analysis is made at the following levels: Individual (evaluators including young end emerging evaluators skills and needs), organizations (including voluntary e.g., national VOPEs), and national level competencies (e.g., gender assessments of national evaluation plans, frameworks, and systems) across different cultures. Sharing of the results and the captured needs and available resources and curricula may serve similar contexts in the Global South.

Gender as a category is understood here as an inclusive term i.e. women and girls, men and boys, and LGBTQ persons. In evaluation research and evaluation there is a tendency to focus on women, because of their documented vulnerability in certain cultural contexts with strong patriarchal traditions. In a FCV context, this becomes even more visible, whereas the vulnerability of LGBTQ persons might be underestimated, and the men´s role is both over- and underestimated. The social world cannot be taken for granted, ab initio. The argument in this session is that gender as an inclusive category must be considered in order to reach a deeper understanding of the complexity in a given FCV context. For an evaluation to be useful, we need to understand how the dynamics between how different gender groups interact with conflict scenarios, and how conflict impact on different gender groups in a given FCV environment.

Remote program evaluation has facilitated the process of evaluating any program during the pandemic. Although it has miscellaneous advantages, such as time efficiency, cost effectiveness, and connecting evaluators with stakeholders and participants all around the world, remote program evaluation still has several disadvantages, such as low-quality internet connection and fewer opportunities to build rapport among others. Another important issue is that of the importance of mental health and to understand the amount of stress the pandemic has placed on evaluators. I believe it is still important to recognize that not all evaluators can work efficiently and effectively under stress, and they also need some quality time so they can plan, implement, and deliver evaluations to the best of their abilities. After the pandemic ends, it will be important to weigh the pros and cons of remote program evaluation to determine whether an evaluator would opt for remote or in-person evaluation. An important consideration when performing remote evaluation is to successfully ensure that the evaluator is still abiding by frameworks for evaluation posed by their field, such as the Framework for Evaluation in Public Health by the CDC that guides evaluators in the public health field. Another important finding is that although the majority of evaluators are leaning towards remote evaluation, they still need to consider the context they’re in and determine whether it’s more appropriate to go for in-person evaluation instead.

Evidence can shape policy decisions in a variety of ways. Use of evidence to inform and influence policy formulation, implementation and evaluation is centered towards better decisions for a better future. It is focused on the effective use of vehemently scarce resources, avoiding harm and maximizing good. Use of evidence is grounded in principles of equity and equality, of accountability and transparency. Given these characteristics, there is arguably a moral, economic, social and political case for paying closer attention to evidence-informed decision-making ecosystems in African governments. A prerequisite for the actual use of evaluations in policy is that key political actors demand evidence to be made available and are receptive to the findings. Guidance produced by the World Bank Group on strengthening government capacity in generating and using M&E evidence argues that weak demand for evaluation evidence can pose an even greater limitation to the use of evaluation evidence. There is increasing interest in understanding whether and under what circumstances robust evidence directly contributes to a policy decision. Indeed, a number of initiatives are consistently gaining momentum in Africa with the aim of advancing demand and use of evidence. This panel is aimed at documenting contextual factors (trends and dynamics) in Africa that have shaped efforts towards evidence use. This panel will present views from distinguished panelists who will share stories of effective evidence-policy-practice interfaces in Africa, such as credibility/trust, relevance, timeliness, clarity and legitimacy. The discussion will profile what has worked, what has not and why?