The Inclusive Rigour Co-Lab report back from the European Evaluation Society conference.
It has been over a month since EES2024, where we convened a discussion on Rethinking Rigour, together with colleagues from the Causal Pathways initiative and the Kinnect Group.
In that time, we have been reflecting on the evolution of the discourse relating to power and participation in M&E, and its relevance to our work in the Co-Lab.
EES 2024: A Shift Toward Plural Epistemologies and Decolonising Ways of Knowing
We noticed a significant shift in discourse on this main stage of evaluation, especially since presenting our work for the first time at EES 2022 in Copenhagen. The shift towards more plural epistemologies and decolonising evaluation builds on the work of many over many years, to name but a few: Bagele Chilisa’s long standing work on decolonising evaluation, linked to the MadeInAfrica evaluation movement; from the Pacific, the Kaupapa Maori evaluation approach, also gaining momentum through global networks such as EvalIndigenous; or from North America the push for “equity-focused evaluation” (increasingly picked up both by practitioners and commissioners, through the Equitable Evaluation Initiative for instance) related to the racial-equity agenda.
Seeing our peers in attendance, as well as others from different schools of thought across the sector, confirmed that this work that is centering power and creating space for meaningful participation, is no longer confined to a niche. Over the past year, there has been a noticeable shift in how the evaluation community understands and engages with diverse ways of knowing. Conversations are increasingly centered on decolonising knowledge, moving away from a singular, Western-centric, definition of rigour. For us, this has been energizing, as we’ve watched ideas we’ve been grappling with—such as epistemological plurality—take center stage. This was particularly noticeable in the EES keynote on Transforming Together by Zenda Ofir, Bagele Chilisa and Yvonne Pinto – all about indigenous ways of knowing and decolonising the sector.
Our hope, by convening a panel on Reframing Rigour at EES, was to be part of this conversation by inviting others to join us as we learn across different perspectives, creating a space for genuine exchange about challenges and solutions, to push our own thinking on epistemologies, power, enabling environments and participation.
Being in dialogue with people like Kate McKegg during the session, who introduced ideas from her own decolonial practice, pushed our thinking regarding what we mean by meaningful participation. Kate focused on how to be ‘in relationship’ as a practical way to decolonise our own ways of thinking. This centers how we show up. So does ‘participation’ go far enough? And how can it align with practices in indigenous-led evaluations, like those in the Maori contexts she was describing, where Maori are inviting externals into their own processes?
And being in dialogue with friends in the Causal Pathways initiative, represented by Tom Aston in the session, helped us to be more explicit about what values underpin our work – the shift to axiology and ontology is part of the pluralising and decolonising agenda that was so prevalent at EES. For us, values around equity and complexity are ‘baked in’ to our thinking about inclusive forms of rigour, but we realized that this may not yet shine through our writing.
What this means for the inclusive rigour framework
The discussion relating to the framework was pointedly around terminology and the power of words. Specifically, some expressed discomfort around the language of “meaningful participation”. One participant suggested that we shift toward terms like ‘knowledge triangulation’ which, in their mind, would push us toward a more pluralistic understanding of knowledge rather than focusing solely on participation as an invited space.
The idea of the ‘enabling environment’, which in the framework aims to emphasise that evaluation is enmeshed in politics, was also questioned — participants asked whether the language adequately captures the political and power dynamics at play? Or should we rather frame it as a ‘disabling environment,’ given the challenges that arise in certain contexts? Some participants questioned whether funder agendas should even be mentioned at all, and whether by including them we were overly legitimizing them, standing in the way of a decolonial agenda.
Finally, the description of the framework as a framework itself was discussed. Some participants noted that this terminology made it akin to a compliance tool rather than a reflective device. Others defended the terminology as a way to influence in spaces where rigour is still seen conservatively, but where actors are curious to broaden their view but need reassurance. Still, others suggested it was better described as a journey or an imaginary.
These questions all reflect a broader debate: should the framework primarily serve as a design tool for evaluators and commissioners who are ready to move towards a (more) inclusive rigour practice, or should it be used to advocate for a deeper structural shift towards inclusive rigour in the field?
In that regard, some participants resonated with Marina’s suggestion that the framework was a “Trojan Horse”, which could be smuggled to more traditional actors.
As we look ahead, the big questions for us are: how do we engage with other communities in a way that pushes the boundaries of what inclusive rigour can be? Is inclusive rigour a mechanism for achieving transformation and equity, or can it simply be a way to generate higher quality, useful learning, even in spaces where transformation isn’t the goal?
We look forward to more engagements, or to further reactions to our session and to these reflections, to help us further define where our contribution to the discussion would be most meaningful.
