aes26 International Evaluation Conference

Author: Gerard Atkinson, Iris Ethics
Evaluation is typically applied to discrete policies and programs, yet organisations themselves require systematic assessment of whether they achieve their goals and align with their values. This presentation examines how evaluation practice can be adapted to assess an entire company, drawing on a case study from Iris Ethics where we designed and implemented an integrated company-level evaluation plan.

The objective is to demonstrate how evaluative thinking can bridge the fragmented approaches currently dominating corporate contexts. Here strategy evaluation focuses on financial/operational objectives, ESG operates as carved-out compliance, and program evaluation remains siloed. This matters because organisations exist within interconnected systems: programs, profitability, and stakeholder value cannot genuinely be disentangled, yet corporate evaluation practice rarely addresses them holistically.

The presentation makes three core arguments. First, whole-of-company evaluation requires integrated thinking across traditionally separate domains: financial performance, operational delivery, social impact, and stakeholder value, grounded in evaluation's systematic logic whilst incorporating corporate strategy, ESG frameworks, market research methodologies, and economic value-for-investment thinking. Second, evaluability must be embedded from the start: mission and vision statements developed with explicit monitoring and evaluation capability, avoiding vague aspirations that cannot be assessed. Third, evaluation must be integrated into operational platforms rather than existing as separate reporting exercises, making assessment continuous rather than episodic.

The presentation follows a case study structure using a start-up example: establishing why whole-of-company evaluation matters, presenting the step-by-step framework (including whole-of-company logic models), demonstrating how evaluation integrates with strategy, governance, financial management, and competitive positioning, and identifying transferable lessons. Building on methodologies developed for NFP and government sectors but adapted to incorporate profitability and commercial risk, it demonstrates evaluation's applicability beyond traditional boundaries.

It will comprise a structured Q&A and discussion on barriers to integrated company evaluation, and invites participants to identify how the profession can engage with this frontier of practice.

Authors: Ruth Nicholls, Treasury. Eleanor Williams, ACE, Tony Kiessler, Australian Indigenous Psychology, Liz Wren, Kowa, Jade Maloney, ARTD, Nigel McPaul, Dementia Org
In an era of public sector reform, the evaluation profession is being reshaped from multiple directions. In Australia, this is occurring through two intersecting pathways: the Australian Public Service (APS) Evaluation Profession, established as part of broader APS Reform; and the ongoing question of professionalisation within the Australian Evaluation Society (AES) and the evaluation field more broadly. This panel explores how these two “routes” to professionalism interact, reinforce and sometimes challenge one another. The discussion asks how evaluation can remain grounded in its core professional principles of rigour, ethics, cultural responsiveness and learning; while adapting to new institutional expectations, roles and accountabilities.

Using the APS Evaluation Profession Strategy as a starting point, panellists will reflect on how professionalism is being articulated, operationalised and experienced within government. They will consider what it means to professionalise evaluation inside a public service context shaped by reform agendas, capability frameworks and system stewardship.

At the same time, the panel will widen the lens to examine how professionalism has traditionally been understood within the AES: through standards, competencies, peer accountability and professional identity. We will explore what this means for First Nations Evaluators.

Rather than assuming these perspectives naturally align, the panel will surface key tensions and questions. Who defines what “good” or “professional” evaluation looks like? How do institutional reform agendas interact with professional norms developed within the evaluation community? What happens when professional judgement, independence or methodological standards are tested by political urgency, contested evidence or strong beliefs? And how do unconscious biases and assumptions shape whose knowledge is valued and whose evidence is trusted? What might be lost with professionalisation - in particular diversification of evaluators and building evaluative thinking into all types of roles - and how we might avoid this.

Author: Liesl Harrold, Australian Taxation Office
Problematisation is a deliberate process of dismantling a problem to understand the different ways of thinking that lead to the classification of phenomena as a problem.  It goes beyond the construction of problem statements to focus on the effort required to understand historical and theoretical assumptions underpinning its framing.  Problematisation is a way to test assumptions, generate new ideas, and make new connections to theoretical understandings. In evaluation, it has the potential to provide rigour to practices associated with judging through structuring evaluative thinking.

Using a skill building format, this paper will help participants understand the role of problems in evaluation. The format will follow an explain-model-apply in a group teaching format including practical application of selected trans-disciplinary theories and approaches. It will include a brief overview of:

•Problem logics and how they can be constructed
•Problem representation and the genealogy of problems
•Key theories that can support evaluators to think differently e.g. social identity and psychological safety theoretical frameworks.

Problematisation provides a systematic approach that offers evaluators support to think differently, rather than using existing knowledge to validate existing thoughts. Evaluators’ worldviews and skills influence their competence which may manifest in generalisations of the problem.

Problem-solving is a role in evaluation, as it supports the purpose of interventions in directing social change. They are primarily considered in the needs analysis phase of an evaluation to anchor program logics. However, this foundation has implications for intervention design, defining outcomes and establishing criteria of merit. Monitoring frameworks, particularly when using sentinel indicators, are also influenced by problem framing and assumptions.
Indigenous and transformative approaches, where the rectification of historical power imbalances is essential, would find this particularly relevant. Problematisation can prepare participants for truth-telling, a step in reconciling intergenerational trauma and stopping systemic violence (Payne & Norman, 2025).

Culturally Grounded Evaluation: Innovative Methods from the Champions4Change Workshop
Author: Sunet Jordaan
The Champions4Change program is a First Nations–led initiative supporting people with lived experience of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) to deliver culturally safe education and advocacy in their communities. In 2025, the Heart Foundation delivered a workshop to strengthen Champions’ knowledge, confidence and leadership skills using culturally grounded and accessible evaluation methods.
This presentation shares the evaluation approach used to assess knowledge gained, confidence built and participants’ experiences. Instead of surveys, evaluators used Yarning circles, storytelling and visual self-assessment tools to create a culturally safe environment aligned with community ways of knowing, being and doing. First Nations facilitators with established relationships with Champions led the activities.
Champions used a visual “road journey” to represent changes in confidence and reflected on their understanding of ARF and RHD through yarning conversations and storytelling discussions. The session highlights how culturally grounded, visual and narrative methods can improve accessibility, participation and lived experience leadership while generating richer insights than traditional surveys.

Agile Evaluation Approaches to Combatting Antisemitism in Australia
Authors: Linda Gyorki, Milo McKay
This presentation explores agile evaluation through a real-world evaluation of place-based initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism and strengthening social cohesion. As global political developments, social polarisation and misinformation reshape communities, evaluators working in sensitive environments can no longer rely on fixed designs. This presentation demonstrates how evaluation can adapt without sacrificing rigour or credibility. Three key lessons highlight agile evaluation in practice. First, polarisation affects participation and engagement, making trust-building and relationship management essential evaluation skills. Second, iterative data collection enables evaluators to identify emerging issues, adjust methods and remain responsive to changing community dynamics. Third, responsiveness itself builds credibility. When evaluation processes visibly adapt to local events and stakeholder realities, findings become more useful and trusted by communities.
Aligning with the conference theme, “Making space, valuing place,” the presentation examines how evaluation can remain grounded in community experience while responding to broader global forces. The session will share practical lessons for evaluators navigating sensitivity, external events and methodological adaptation.

Co-design and evaluation as bridges: An adaptive approach to delivering technology for coral reef conservation
Author: Emily Maher
Delivering multilateral conservation projects requires working across disciplinary, cultural and institutional boundaries. In Southeast Asia, coral reef monitoring and management are further challenged by limited resources, capacity and coordination. This presentation shares the adaptive project management and evaluation approaches used by the Australian Institute of Marine Science to support coral reef monitoring through knowledge, technology and expertise exchange. A deliberate “year zero” planning phase aligned expectations, identified local needs and strengthened collaboration. Guided by co-design and adaptive management principles, evaluative processes structured dialogue between scientists, policymakers, managers and practitioners while integrating diverse priorities and cultural considerations. Evaluation functioned as connective infrastructure rather than simply monitoring progress. Regular reflection on partner feedback and evolving implementation needs supported timely adaptation and negotiation of trade-offs. This collaborative approach fostered strong local ownership and sustained government support, contributing to outcomes including a national coral reef monitoring plan in Brunei Darussalam and agreed monitoring standards in the Philippines and Vietnam. The presentation reflects on roadblocks, unexpected outcomes and lessons for complex projects operating across policy, technology, science and implementation.

Effects of community water fluoridation on child dental caries in remote Northern Territory, Australia
Author: Ramakrishna Chondur
Community water fluoridation (CWF) is a cost-effective intervention for reducing dental caries at a population level. This Northern Territory (NT) study used a difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis to examine dental caries outcomes among children exposed to CWF across 50 remote NT communities. Methods: Oral health data from the NT Department of Health (2008–2020) included 24,546 children aged 1–17 years. Drinking water fluoride data from the Power and Water Corporation were linked to the oral health dataset. The DiD analysis compared a treatment group with two control groups to assess the impact of CWF on dental caries outcomes using the decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft/DMFT) index. Results: Dental caries significantly decreased among children in the treatment group following implementation of CWF, with greater reductions than both control groups over the same period.
Conclusion: CWF produced population-level reductions in dental caries among children in remote NT communities, supporting longstanding NT Department of Health policy and demonstrating improved oral health outcomes.

Enshittification: A new category for your next MEL framework?
Author: Duncan Rintoul
The term enshittification (or enpoopification for delicate ears) describes how digital services often begin as useful tools but degrade in quality and usability over time. This decline is commonly linked to increasing prioritisation of profit, resulting in cluttered interfaces, manipulated content, more advertising, rising costs and poorer user experience.
Coined by Canadian writer Cory Doctorow, the term was named “word of the year” by the American Dialect Society in 2023 and Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary in 2024. Drawing on Doctorow’s 2025 book Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It, this Ignite presentation argues that enshittification deserves a place in risk matrices and MEL frameworks across multiple sectors. The presentation also argues for the value of longitudinal process evaluation, not only longitudinal outcome evaluation, to better understand how systems and user experiences deteriorate over time.

From Admin to Evidence: Transforming Data Quality Through Culture and Capability
Author: Cath Cooper
This Ignite presentation will offer practical insights into how redefining purpose, building capability, and embedding supportive systems can transform data from a burden into a meaningful asset for evaluation.
Key points: 1.Cultural Shift: we reframed “admin tasks” as “Evidence of Impact”, shifting the narrative to honour the value of data as a foundation for learning and accountability 2.System Redesign: A collaboratively built CMS, supported by guides, workshops and induction, strengthened capability and consistency. 3.Sustained Improvement: Monthly monitoring, mentoring and rapid feedback loops led to significantly improved data accuracy and reduced correction time, enabling reliable reporting and decision making.

Authors: Bethany Hanson, Tafe NSW, Emily Gates, Boston University, Martina Donkers
Strap in for a provocative, contentious, and fun session. We’re putting a spin on the classic debate where two teams will go head-to-head to argue the topic: “Evaluation’s pluralism strengthens its external influence.”

On the affirmative side, a spirited case for why pluralism is evaluation’s superpower. Surely leaning into our intersections with disciplines like policy, research and economics expands our reach, relevance, and impact. Embracing pluralism helps evaluators speak multiple “languages,” build trust with diverse stakeholders, and positions evaluation as a boundary‑spanning connector capable of influencing decisions in complex systems. Think: more collaboration, more innovation, and more doors opening because evaluators can flex and adapt.

The negative team will challenge! Doesn’t boundless pluralism stretch evaluation too far, making our unique identity fuzzy and our professional standards harder to uphold? Aren’t we risking dilution of expertise and inconsistencies in practice? Won’t trying to be “everything to everyone” only confuse commissioners and undermine the credibility we’ve spent decades building? Without firmer boundaries, evaluation risks becoming a methodological buffet with no clear value proposition at all.

And then there’s you- our third speaker. A debate without rebuttal is like an evaluation report without findings—unthinkable! So, you’ll choose a side and with a team of fellow audience-members and debaters, craft a knockout final argument for our third speakers.

Will it be chaotic? Quite possibly. Could things get messy? Almost definitely. Will you have FOMO if you miss it? Without a doubt.

Featuring thought leaders Amy Gullickson, Martina Donkers, Matt Healey, George Argyrous, Kate McKegg and AES Fellow, Rick Cummings, this session promises to be the highlight of the conference. Who will be victorious? Let the 2026 (Mostly-Serious) Crowd-Sourced Debate begin!