Authors: Virgina Thomas, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, Stewart Graham, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, Helen Percy, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao A culture of impact, empowered by evaluation, encourages accountability and learning, supporting projects to focus on outcomes, demonstrate efficacy and make improvements. Fostering such an environment promotes success, yet can be challenging to achieve, requiring leadership, communication, adaptability, capacity and capability building, and resources.
Our paper discusses the (co)creation of impact culture, and evaluation systems and tools, in the Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, a new public research organisation created by merging four of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Crown Research Institutes (CRIs). Establishing an impact culture in this new organisation requires building bridges and blurring boundaries between the organisations and systems that have been merged.
While the four CRIs all had systems and tools to plan for and evaluate impact, the approaches were unique to each organisation, as were their impact cultures. Since the merger, colleagues have collaborated to bring the previously separate systems and tools together into a new evaluation ecosystem.
In our paper we focus on creating a cohesive impact culture, empowered by evaluation, through i. inter-organisational dialogue, ii. building an enabling environment for evaluation that is adaptable to different needs and functions, and iii. disseminating evaluation tools and resources and promoting evaluative thinking across organisations through collegial networks.
Using our experience as a case study, we will inspire our audience to reconsider the impact and evaluation culture, systems and tools in their own organisations using real time polling (e.g., Mentimeter) to encourage reflection and participation.
We draw on the work of Blundo and Canto (2019) and Ferre (2025) on building an evaluative culture including: creating a system that is adaptable to the different needs and functions of the legacy organisations, fostering dialogue across and beyond the evaluation sector to include fields such as economics and social science, and building capacity, capability and resources for evaluation.
Friday September 18, 2026 12:00pm - 12:30pm ACST Waterfront 3Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia
Author: Matthew Armstrong, CGIAR This presentation provides practical insights on how and when to use economics in evaluation. Economic ideas shape public policy, funding, and program design. Economics promises efficiency, cost effectiveness, value for money and optimisation. Many evaluation theories, for example Stufflebeam’s CIPP model (2007), Scriven’s (2007) consumer orientated model, and Patton’s (2003) utilisation-focused model are biased towards the social concerns of evaluation.
Yet, evaluators are often tasked with incorporating economic concepts, methods and language into evaluations. But how do we make them fit-for-purpose, credible and culturally appropriate? This case study examines when and how economic concepts should be integrated into evaluation.
CGIAR, a global agricultural research network, is introducing tools to apply comparative advantage in portfolio design and evaluation. Comparative advantage suggests organisations should specialise in areas where they are relatively strongest and partner elsewhere to maximise impact. The theory is compelling: comparative advantage offers reduced duplication and deliberate partnerships at lower costs.
However, how do we credibly measure and make evaluative judgements about comparative advantage? This study found considerable variation in how comparative advantage was applied across the organisation and consternation in response to the roll-out that hindered its usefulness. This presentation describes an interdisciplinary negotiation undertaken to develop guidance for rigorous process and performance evaluations of comparative advantage within CGIAR. It involves a structured process to identify synergies and tensions between existing evaluation and economic practice relating to comparative advantage, a step-by-step approach to undertaking evaluations with comparative advantage criteria, and recommendations for developing an organisation-wide approach to comparative advantage to support consistent, high-quality. Furthermore, this case study illustrates a crucial requirement to reflect upon how economics is integrated into evaluation, including when it should be adapted or challenged.
In the interactive component, participants will reflect on how economics shapes evaluation in their organisations.
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!
Kate has specialist skills in supporting evaluative thinking and practice in complex settings where people are innovating to create systems change. She has been applying these skills for over 25 years in government, non-government, philanthropic and community contexts, including many... Read More →
Principal Consultant | Co-Founder, First Person Consulting
I'm Matt, Co-Founder of First Person Consulting. I work at the intersection of systems thinking, evaluation and design — helping people make sense of messy, complex problems with a healthy dose of humour and humility. I also co-host the It Depends Podcast, where the honest answer... Read More →
Rick Cummings is an Emeritus Professor in Public Policy at Murdoch University. He has 40 years of experience conducting evaluation studies in education, training, health, and crime prevention primarily for the state and commonwealth government agencies and the World Bank. He currently... Read More →
Emily Gates is a tenured associate professor at Boston College whose research explores how evaluation can support meaningful, values-driven change in complex systems. Her work bridges theory and practice, spanning more than 30 publications and two coauthored books: Evaluative Inquiry... Read More →
