aes26 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Stephanie Carter (Healthconsult), Megan Anderson (Healthconsult), Felicity Miles (Healthconsult)

Evaluation findings do not exist in a vacuum. Evaluators increasingly operate in environments where public and media narratives form alongside, and sometimes ahead of, emerging evidence. In some cases, this scrutiny is heightened even when programs are demonstrating early signs of effectiveness.
This roundtable explores ethical, practical, and relational challenges evaluators face when evaluation findings are still emerging yet are already subject to public scrutiny, interpretation or debate.
This session will draw on real-world examples where early media attention was significant but subsided following the public release of independent evaluation findings, highlighting the role of timing, transparency and credibility in shaping public discourse.
Evaluators operate within complex social, cultural and political “places,” where narratives influence how evidence is understood and trusted. These dynamics are particularly relevant in place-based contexts, where community expectations and local perspectives shape interpretation and use of findings.
Participants will consider questions such as:
• What is the evaluator’s role when media scrutiny oversimplifies findings?
• How do we uphold principles of integrity and independence when public narratives are misaligned with evidence that is still being assessed?
• What strategies help evaluators support clients and communities when media attention becomes a risk?
• How can we strengthen transparent communication without breaching confidentiality or compromising methodological rigour?
The session will be highly interactive, and use structured facilitated reflection to encourage participants to share experiences, unpack dilemmas, and co-develop strategies.
This roundtable will generate practical principles and strategies through:
• Provocation scenarios based on real evaluation–media tensions to spark discussion.
• Small‑group discussion rounds where participants unpack dilemmas, share experiences, and co‑develop strategies.
• Collective synthesis where groups contribute key principles, strategies, and questions to a shared summary.