4.3 Definitions

The word evaluation has the same etymology as value. Evaluation is about assessing/appraising the value of things. The Merriam-Webster’s defines ‘evaluation’ as “to judge the value or condition of (someone or something) in a careful and thoughtful way”.

The field of evaluation is diverse and offers different definitions. Some of these are more focused on systematic analysis principles, while others are more versed on identifying shared solutions. For example, the Encyclopedia of Evaluation (Mathison, 2005) offers the following definition:

I personally also like the definition from Mark, Henry and Julnes (2000):

Evaluation assists sensemaking about policies and programs through the conduct of systematic inquiry that describes and explains the policies’ and programs’ operations, effects, justifications, and social implications. The ultimate goal of evaluation is social betterment, to which evaluation can contribute by assisting democratic institutions to better select, oversee, improve, and make sense of social programs and policies. (Mark et al., 2000, p. 3)

These definitions show how much the representation of the evaluative exercise can vary according to the evaluator’s approach and values.

The definition used in the previous book I co-edited and co-wrote (Brousselle et al., 2011b) elaborates on this point:

To evaluate is basically to make a value judgment on an intervention by implementing an inquiry design capable of providing scientifically valid and socially legitimate information about that intervention or any of its components, the objective being to ensure that the various actors concerned, whose perspectives can be different, are able to take a stand on the intervention so that they can construct, individually or collectively, a judgment that can be translated into actions. (Free translation, Champagne et al., 2011c, p. 38)

These definitions are still valid, but are they enough for our new world context? As emphasized in the following collective reflection:

Evaluators need to adopt an open mindset, question predetermined myths, value diverse cultures, and adopt a relational, inclusive, equitable, and respectful approach. Evaluators need to engage with communities, to adopt community-driven approaches, while bringing a holistic perspective in the evaluation (Evans et al., 2020). Evaluators are seen as adopting a broad role where projects, programs and policies, and systems are questioned, where barriers to change are targeted, and where inequities and injustices are identified. They are also people who facilitate conversations in communities, gather and analyze data, and give back results to the community for dialogue and deliberation. They empower communities, support their self-determination, and, within communities, elevate more marginalized voices. They also need to recognize that there will be occasions when it is not appropriate for them to lead an evaluation, that it may be led entirely by community leaders, and instead they are an ally. Furthermore, evaluators are responsible for sharing with the larger community of peers and contributing to social change. Evaluation should be used to initiate and foster social movements, working across isolated evaluation experiences. In this role, evaluators engage in highlighting harm, environmental impacts, and injustices and in taking positions to support action not only for the public good—as was the original goal of the field—but for planetary health (Brousselle & McDavid, 2021). This marks an important change in the ontology of evaluation as it enlarges the purpose of evaluation practice beyond responding to commissioners’ interests, beyond the public good, to an even larger conception of our role, and with a responsibility toward nature, while being accountable to communities. Adopting such an ontology of practice fundamentally implies that the evaluator is standing for the value of evaluation, which can no longer be an instrument of the system but a way to reinforce democratic and community processes: Only then will evaluators have the capacity to contribute to transformative change. (as cited in Brousselle et al., 2024a, p. 188)

Another challenge to consider is the growing polarization in society, which often leads to irreconcilable perspectives. In a post-truth era where facts are contested, can we reach a collective understanding and agreement on what the problem is and its potential solutions? If not, how can evaluators navigate post-truth contexts, and what role do they play? The evaluator’s ability to document and expose various positions remains important. Although the topics covered by the evaluation may not always be directly affected by the polarized context, building some form of shared understanding is still possible in most cases. But what if the topic involves issues where certain groups have irreconcilable positions? How will this impact the role of evaluators? Will their legitimacy itself be contested? These are some of the many questions raised by the growing context of organized disinformation and polarization. We are entering an era of significant uncertainty. Definitions of what evaluation is have evolved over time alongside the field itself. We can expect the role of evaluation to continue changing in the coming years, with new practices shaping future definitions of evaluation.

As a researcher, I value scientific processes, grounded in the belief that a reality exists, and can be partially understood using scientific methodologies. I am not willing to compromise on the existence of certain phenomena that are widely supported by scientific evidence, such as climate change. At the same time, I acknowledge that doubt is a core concept in the construction of scientific knowledge. Additionally, debate plays a natural and important role in knowledge construction. However, I also recognize the existence of irreconcilable perspectives and the need to shape processes accordingly. My position is pragmatic, as I adopt the view that evaluation processes are largely bricolage.

Bricolage goes beyond the notion of mixing methods, or mixed-methods, which is focused on combining different types of data. It includes combining elements from different paradigms and enquiry traditions, and adapting methods and tools as needed. It includes attention to the context of the evaluation in terms of the nature of what is being evaluated and its setting, and the nature of the evaluation and its questions and purposes. Bricolage is more likely to be used in an emergent evaluation design where initial findings and understandings can be used to inform subsequent design. (BetterEvaluation, 2025)

As Margaret Hargreaves (2021) explains:

I see bricolage as a transdisciplinary, mixed paradigm approach for reconciling the different ontological (“real world”) and epistemological (“theory of knowledge”) perspectives that complexity science and systems thinking bring to evaluation. I use bricolage to strengthen the design of complexity- and systems thinking-informed evaluations by weaving multiple paradigms into all four elements of evaluation design: (1) conceptual frameworks, (2) inquiry frameworks, (3) methods and metrics, and (4) evaluation values and valuing. (Hargreaves, 2021, p. 114)

Later in her article, she notes that evaluation bricolage serves an important function, creating value:

A new evaluation approach that is emerging is not about determining value (providing an objective appraisal of the value or worth of a program model based on predetermined criteria), but about contributing to change by creating value (engaging proactively in ongoing communication with multiple stakeholders about evaluation findings while paying attention to the organizational, institutional, and community contexts in which the evaluation decisions are being made, and actions are being taken. (Hargreaves, 2021, p. 122)

In a post-truth era and within the current environmental and social context, which demand radical changes, evaluation can be defined as an engaging process that combines various complementary inquiry approaches to support decision-making, while also contributing to sense-making, value creation, positive ecosystems, and social change. Evaluation aims at providing credible information to make informed and socially acceptable decisions about products, projects, programs, and policies –called interventions in this book. Evaluation can help align interventions with community needs, support evidence-informed design of interventions, provide information on what works and what doesn’t according to the context, inform on the larger impacts of interventions, support informed decision-making on allocation of resources, and monitor progress.