Your search

Background: Ex-post evaluation of sustainability has been done for 40 years in global development. However, it has been done far less than 1% of all global development projects, for there is little proof that “sustainable” development is or is not. Similarly, foreign aid projects are implemented to foster sustainability, but without the benefit of evidence from expost evaluations of what drove it and limited research on the benefits of robust exit strategies. Purpose: Transparency in values...

Realist evaluation and experimental designs are both well-established approaches to evaluation. Over the past 10 years, realist trials—evaluations purposefully combining realist evaluation and experimental designs—have emerged. Informed by a comprehensive review of published realist trials, this article examines to what extent and how realist trials align with quality standards for realist evaluations and randomized controlled trials and to what extent and how the realist and trial aspects...

Evaluators are interested in capturing how things causally influence one another. They are also interested in capturing how stakeholders think things causally i...

This article describes the journey of the Research and Evaluation team at the Annie E. Casey Foundation to develop an approach that would allow us to rethink and deepen how we, as funders of research and evaluation, center equity in our practice. In particular, we explain how, through this process, we began to focus on what it means to orient research and evaluation toward participant owners and came to examine the assumptions, expectations, habits, and values that we held. These...

This conversation between staff at the Oregon Community Foundation and the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving shares how we are infusing the Equitable Evaluation Framework™ into our practice as we aim to be less extractive, shift power, and honor all ways of knowing and being as valid. In sharing this conversation, we want to pull the curtain back and offer a behind-the-scenes view into the conversations, realities, and challenges involved in doing this kind of work. We sat down together...

Welcome to the special issue of The Foundation Review. For many, this is an introduction to the Equitable Evaluation Framework™, and how some folks in U.S. philanthropy are reimagining evaluation, learning, and research through its practice. For others, you’ve been in practice of the EEF alongside us and other individuals and organizations and are, thus, represented in the offerings shared from your colleagues. Over the past three years, in partnership with many, we’ve engaged in...

This article assesses the application of the problem driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) approach to public financial management reform in six African countries. It draws on primary data collected using a mix of interviews, overt participation observations and a short survey. PDIA responds to shortcomings in orthodox approaches to reform and technical assistance in developing countries. It stresses local solutions to local problems, achieved through experimentation and adaptation. The...

The Health Forward Foundation recently completed a two-year journey with the Equitable Evaluation Initiative as a practicing partner. This partnership provided us with the support to push for change that better aligned with our new focus, prioritizing racial equity and economic advancement. The partnership also allowed us to explore a number of questions fundamental to our work in learning and evaluation: what we really know about the impact philanthropy is making in our communities; how we...

Responses to sustainability challenges are not delivering results at the scale and speed called for by science, international agreements, and concerned citizens. Yet there is a tendency to underestimate the large-scale impacts of small-scale, local, and contextualized actions, and particularly the role of individuals in scaling transformations. Here, we explore a fractal approach to scaling sustainability transformations based on “universal values.” Universal values are proposed as intrinsic...

Learning circles are an approach where individuals with a common interest meet regularly to learn from each other about a self-identified topic in a format chosen by the group. Honoring a group’s collective wisdom, centering participants’ learning needs, and prioritizing relationships and trust are all features of learning circles. This practice is of increasing interest to funders and evaluators as a tool for practicing learning and evaluation aligned with the Equitable Evaluation...

This article describes the journey of the Research and Evaluation team at the Annie E. Casey Foundation to develop an approach that would allow us to rethink and deepen how we, as funders of research and evaluation, center equity in our practice. In particular, we explain how, through this process, we began to focus on what it means to orient research and evaluation toward participant owners and came to examine the assumptions, expectations, habits, and values that we held. These...

The idea that technologies can change moral beliefs and practices is an old one. But how, exactly, does this happen? This paper builds on an emerging field of inquiry by developing a synoptic taxonomy of the mechanisms of techno-moral change. It argues that technology affects moral beliefs and practices in three main domains: decisional (how we make morally loaded decisions), relational (how we relate to others) and perceptual (how we perceive situations). It argues that across these three...

Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to research that prioritizes the value of experiential knowledge for tackling problems caused by unequal and harmful social systems, and for envisioning and implementing alternatives. PAR involves the participation and leadership of those people experiencing issues, who take action to produce emancipatory social change, through conducting systematic research to generate new knowledge. This Primer sets out key considerations for the design of...

Achieving impact through research for development programmes (R4D) requires engagement with diverse stakeholders across the research, development and policy divides. Understanding how such programmes support the emergence of outcomes, therefore, requires a focus on the relational aspects of engagement and collaboration. Increasingly, evaluation of large research collaborations is employing social network analysis (SNA), making use of its relational view of causation. In this paper, we use...

Large publicly funded programmes of research continue to receive increased investment as interventions aiming to produce impact for the world’s poorest and most marginalized populations. At this intersection of research and development, research is expected to contribute to complex processes of societal change. Embracing a co-produced view of impact as emerging along uncertain causal pathways often without predefined outcomes calls for innovation in the use of complexity-aware approaches to...

The United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) aimed to address global challenges to achieve the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals through 12 interdisciplinary research hubs. This research documents key lessons learned around working with Theory of Change (ToC) to guide Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) within these complex research for development hubs. Interviews and document reviews were conducted in ten of the research...

Research for development (R4D) funding is increasingly expected to demonstrate value for money (VfM). However, the dominance of positivist approaches to evaluating VfM, such as cost-benefit analysis, do not fully account for the complexity of R4D funds and risk undermining efforts to contribute to transformational development. This paper posits an alternative approach to evaluating VfM, using the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund as case studies. Based on a...

The complexity of issues addressed by research for development (R4D) requires collaborations between partners from a range of disciplines and cultural contexts. Power asymmetries within such partnerships may obstruct the fair distribution of resources, responsibilities and benefits across all partners. This paper presents a cross-case analysis of five R4D partnership evaluations, their methods and how they unearthed and addressed power asymmetries. It contributes to the field of R4D...

Research for development (R4D) aims to make a tangible difference to development challenges, but these effects typically take years to emerge. Evaluation (especially impact evaluation) often takes place before there is evidence of development impact. In this paper, we focus on opportunities for assessing the potential for impact at earlier stages in the research and innovation process. We argue that such a focus can help research programme managers and evaluators learn about the...

When funders aren’t accountable for impact, it ruins the party for everyone.