Based on the rationale and the theoretical underpinnings, when developing the methodology, we are mindful that the methodology may be too reductionist but we want the methodology to fulfil the following:
- User-friendly: Can the methodology be relatively easy to use while embracing the complexity of systems change? How can it be adapted to different types of actors and contexts?
- Flexible to implement: Can the methodology allow for different types of evaluation to take place, depending on budgets and timeframe available, and other operational constraints?
- Rigorous: Can the methodology still maintain evaluation quality standards (Bond Evidence Principles, 2018), such as triangulation of data, mixed methods, baseline data, etc?
- Learning-oriented: Can the methodology be designed to encourage learning and programme improvement?
- Participatory: Can the methodology make users and stakeholders participate at key stages of the evaluation, so their perspectives shape the evaluation design, data collection and findings?
We are also considering how the methodology can contribute to other progressive evaluation agendas, such as indigenous evaluation, developmental evaluation, participatory evaluation, empowerment evaluation, feminist evaluation, etc.
Question for co-creators:
1) What do you think about the above considerations?
2) Any other considerations, from practical, methodological and theoretical perspectives?
Please feel free to share your thoughts with us by commenting on this blog post, or our social media posts, or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org . Feel free to engage in the discussions by hashtag #SystemsChangeEval.