aes26 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Kristine Tuban, Save the Children, Martin Holmstrand, Save the Children
This presentation showcases MEAL Uplift, a regional initiative by Save the Children Australia that strengthens digital monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) across Pacific Country Offices through a close partnership between programme teams, MEAL, and the Technology team. The presentation focuses on how this collaboration produced a practical, co‑created digital solution while building long‑term organisational capability.

The objective of the presentation is to demonstrate why cross‑disciplinary partnership is critical to improving data quality, efficiency, and use in evaluation practice, and how evaluation can actively shape digital transformation, rather than simply adopting technological tools after they are introduced. This is important in contexts where teams face increasing reporting demands but limited capacity to manage fragmented or manual data systems.

The core argument is that sustainable digital MEAL is achieved when three elements are intentionally integrated:
(1) Digital systems and infrastructure, illustrated through a custom‑built data collection app and automated data pipeline co‑designed with the Technology team to address efficiency and quality challenges;
(2) Skills and behaviours, supported through targeted training, coaching, and practical use of real data; and
(3) Scaling and institutional support, through shared standards, governance, and regional scaffolding that embeds digital MEAL into everyday practice.

The presentation will follow this three‑part structure, using concrete examples and lessons from MEAL Uplift to show what worked, what changed, and why.

Participant engagement will be promoted through short reflection prompts on participants’ own digital MEAL challenges, followed by shared discussion and an open Q&A focused on transferable ideas and co‑created solutions across different organisational contexts.

Authors: Jen Lorains (Children's Ground), Veronica Doolan (Children's Ground), Pauline Grant (Children's Ground), Jackie Treeves (Children's Ground)

For too long our people have been the subjects not the leaders of evaluation and research: “Our people have been researched to death. It’s time we researched ourselves back to life” (William Tilmouth, Senior Arrernte man).
Children’s Ground (CG) is disrupting the status quo in research and evaluation. From daily data collection and designing evaluation tools, to analysing evaluation data through community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks relevant to each place.

Using practice evidence and collaborative reflection about how First Nations communities are leading service/program evaluation for their families and place, the workshop learning objective is that participants will increase their understanding of culturally grounded evaluation and gain practical strategies and skills that can be applied to their evaluation context.

The workshop will consist of two parts, including CG sharing practice evidence, followed by collaborative group/table strategy development.

Firstly, CG’s evaluation principles will be outlined, with First Nations leaders sharing experiences in action. Participants will reflect on 2-3 principles, documenting their effective and challenging experiences of working in line with the principes, then sharing with the larger group. CG’s First Nations leaders will respond, building on the knowledge being generated by the participants.

Secondly, CG’s First Nations leaders will share experiences of developing community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks, including a visual walk through of 2-3 frameworks developed by First Nations communities across three culturally and geographically diverse regions. Comparative examples of evaluation data analysis between CG’s cultural and western evaluation frameworks will also be shared, including methodological implications.

Participants will collaboratively document ideas for supporting First Nations people/communities to develop community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks in their context, then sharing with the larger group.

We believe learning how to embed culturally grounded evaluation from First Nations community’s real-world experience is an important contribution to holistic learning, complements theoretical learning.

Author: Jo van Twest Farmer (Rooftop Social)

Independence is often posited as a primary means of ensuring evaluation is rigorous, trustworthy and fair. Independence is Norm 4 of the United Nation’s Evaluation Group Norms and Standards for Evaluation (2016), which states it is “necessary for credibility”. Built into this standard are two concepts – behavioural independence (evaluating without undue influence) and organisational independence (structures that support independent practice). For many in the evaluation landscape, the best means of ensuring independence has been for ‘independent evaluators’ to conduct ‘independent evaluations’.
Discussions around what constitutes independence have long been a feature of evaluation literature, but arguably there have never been so many pressures on maintaining independence in evaluation. There is growing interest in evaluation approaches where the relationships between program delivery and evaluation is less clear-cut, such as developmental, participatory and lived experience-led evaluations. As evaluation capability grows, evaluation functions are more widespread across teams and embedded in business-as-usual learning practice, rather than contracted out. Less positively, changing fiscal conditions place more pressure on organisations to undertake evaluation with less capacity for external expertise and support. The need to demonstrate impact to access funding in tightening funding environments means evaluations are higher stakes than ever, and there are often vested interests in demonstrating programs are effective.
This short paper will discuss what independence means in 2026, arguing that evaluation has moved beyond ‘organisational independence’ and must instead focus on how to support ‘behavioural independence’. Contemporary evaluation practice requires understandings of independence grounded in ethics and integrity. This approach directly challenges traditional role boundaries in evaluation, such as external versus internal or participant versus evaluator. In responding to the challenges of maintaining independence in 2026 and beyond, the presentation will suggest criteria to support evaluators to guide the ethics of their own practice, and a framework for upholding independent practice.

Authors: Nic Vogelpoel (Day Four Projects), Malika Reese (Lived Experience Advisor), Sandra Collins (Lived Experience Advisor)
What happens when evaluation is not just informed by lived experience, but led by it?

This presentation offers a rare, practice-based account of a lived experience-led evaluation undertaken with the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse, where victim survivors worked as co-evaluators across all stages of the process. Established to centre victim survivors in awareness-raising, help-seeking, advocacy and best-practice responses, the Centre provided a powerful context to rethink how evaluation knowledge is produced, and by whom.

The session argues that lived experience-led evaluation is not an ethical “add-on”, but a fundamental shift in values, power and epistemology. Drawing on the evaluation findings, presenters will explore three core propositions.

First, nothing about us without us: moving from evaluation on people to evaluation led by people with lived experience reshapes evaluation questions, evidence, outcomes and definitions of rigour. Second, epistemic justice: lived experience leadership challenges entrenched assumptions about who gets to ask questions, whose knowledge counts, and how institutions respond to new forms of evidence. Third, beyond advice to synthesis: lived experience cannot simply “advise” evaluation, it must be integrated as a distinct way of knowing that transforms the whole evaluation.

Co-presented by lived experience evaluators and Day Four Projects evaluators, the session will combine reflective storytelling, concrete practice examples and facilitated dialogue. Participants will be invited to critically examine their own evaluative assumptions, engage in small-group reflection, and explore practical strategies for making space for multiple knowledge systems while maintaining evaluative integrity and meeting institutional requirements.This session will be particularly valuable for evaluators, commissioners, researchers and practitioners seeking more just, credible and impactful approaches to lived-experience evaluation in complex and sensitive contexts.

Who really benefits from a program and how? Using personae to enrich logic models.
Author: Fiona Scott-Melton, Allen + Clarke
Not everyone experiences a program the same way. Yet logic models tend to obscure differences between population groups experiences, needs and aspirations. Incorporating personae helps address this limitation. By representing distinct population groups within a logic model, personae make visible the different routes through which people experience a program and what they gain from it. Drawing on a real life logic model developed for housing disabled people, the session will show how incorporating personae strengthens evaluation design, enriches social return on investment calculations and produces more compelling findings for stakeholders.

Help! The post-it notes have fallen off our logic model and been mixed up!
Author: Robert Grimshaw, ATO
Can you help us piece the logic model back together? This online interactive group activity is one tool used by a large public sector agency to familiarise people with key logic modelling concepts and thinking. This session will provide a practical demonstration of the activity and how it’s being used by workshop participants to apply their learning in a simple and fun way. Participant feedback has confirmed the value of this tool for engaging with and building the capability of a diverse audience who have limited evaluation capability and experience.

Method vs methodology – what’s the difference, and why it matters 
Author: Martina Donkers, Martina Donkers
We’ve got to stop using the words ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ interchangeably. ‘Methodology’ isn’t a slightly-fancier way of saying ‘method’ – it’s actually what conceptually underpins your method choices, and it’s an important thing to reckon with if you want to do evaluation that speaks to your stakeholders, is culturally responsive, is ethical and proportionate, and is ultimately useful. This quick-fire Ignite session will be a rapid deep-dive into practical ways to think about methodology in evaluation, apply it to traditional practice and emerging approaches, and leverage that thinking to do better evaluative work.

Exploring arts-based methods for project evaluation
Authors: Katie Ronson, Creative Australia, Kirstin Clements, Partner Impact & Evaluation
In this presentation evaluation practitioners from Creative Australia and Arts Centre Melbourne share how arts-based evaluation methods can unlock insights about participant experience in contexts where traditional methods struggle.

Evaluating ConnectUp: preferences for a social connectivity app among people with disability and carers
Authors: Feby Savira, Deakin University, Dom Kwasnicka, Deakin University, Lucio Naccarella, Deakin University

A national DCE (n=1,031) was conducted with people with disability, carers, and individuals identifying as both. Participants completed choice tasks comparing hypothetical versions of ConnectUp that varied across cost, communication modes, group structures, anonymity, support features, and information sources. Preferences were analysed using a conditional logit model, with latent class analysis used to identify user segments. Attitudinal questions explored additional features not captured within the DCE.

Three key findings emerge. First, participants were cost sensitive, preferring low- or no-cost options. Second, privacy and control were critical: users preferred small, private group settings and avoided features that compromised anonymity. Third, preferences were heterogeneous. Three segments were identified, including a highly price-sensitive group, a majority group prioritising anonymity and community-generated content, and a smaller segment (18%) more tolerant of cost but still favouring private group structures.

Attitudinal findings highlight additional design considerations. Flexible access features such as membership suspension (73%) and free trial options (77%) were widely valued. Around half of participants prioritised staff training in inclusivity (50%) and access in a preferred language (51%), while over half (54%) preferred human support over automated options.

This presentation demonstrates how combining DCE and attitudinal data can strengthen evaluation of digital services by capturing trade-offs and broader user expectations, and how segmentation can inform more inclusive design decisions. Participants will engage in scenario-based discussion to translate findings into practice.

Thou shall not: The 10 Commandments for Surveys 
Author: Louise Parker, Alinea International
The 10 Commandments for Surveys:
1) Thou shall not ask too many questions - survey fatigue is real and so is wasting people's time. Figure out what you absolutely must know from respondents and craft your questions around that.
2) Thou shall not ask double-barreled questions e.g. 'Did you find the workshop fun and informative?'
3) Thou shall not change the appearance order of repeating yes/no or Likert scale responses - if 'strongly agree' appears on the far right the first time, keep it that way throughout the whole survey.
...plus 7 more fabulous tips!

Authors: Andrew Boyle
Development programs often focus on whether interventions achieve intended outcomes, yet comparatively little attention is given to how the problems those interventions seek to address are defined. The way a problem is represented shapes which interventions are considered possible, influencing theories of change, program design, and the evaluation questions that follow.

Author: Jack Rutherford, ARTD
Have you ever felt that the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework you developed or had to implement was potentially too complicated?

This presentation introduces Key Monitoring Questions (KMQs); a novel approach that builds on the well‑established logic of Results‑Based Accountability (RBA) to simplify M&E frameworks while strengthening their usefulness for decision‑making and reflection.

M&E Frameworks often become unintentionally complex. In the pursuit of rigour and comprehensiveness, evaluators and program designers can generate long lists of indicators, data sources and measurement requirements. While well‑intentioned, these expansive frameworks can overwhelm those responsible for implementation, leading to delays in data collection and reporting or abandoned learning processes.

Instead of attempting to measure every activity, output or incremental outcome, KMQs concentrate attention on purposeful questions drawn from RBA that the monitoring system must answer. This shift helps teams focus on what matters most by clarifying the purpose of monitoring and identifying the minimum information required to support meaningful learning.

The presentation will introduce four KMQs adapted from RBA and demonstrate how they streamline data collection and support evaluation and reflection:

1.How much was done? 
2.How well was it done? 
3.Who was affected? 
4.How has the context changed?

The presentation will share three key messages:

1.Complex frameworks can undermine learning by overwhelming users with excessive data expectations.
2.KMQs provide a structured, disciplined way to sharpen focus and streamline indicator selection.
3.Using KMQs supports more sustainable monitoring practice, enabling teams to engage more deeply with the data that matters.

Before the session, you will be asked to reflect on your experiences developing or implementing M&E Frameworks, recognising the shared issues that KMQs address.

This session is targeted at foundational and intermediate evaluators, and commissioners and program staff who suspect their frameworks could be simpler and more effective.

Authors: Jessi Gidgup-Lovett (Rooftop Social), Duncan Rintoul (Rooftop Social)

First Nations peoples of Australia have evaluated outcomes, impacts and responsibilities since time immemorial through Indigenous systems of lore, knowledge and accountability to Country, kin and future generations. The Cultural Wisdom and Story Gathering Artefact (CWISGA) responds to this context by reframing monitoring and evaluation as practices of accountability, care, truth telling and improvement rather than extraction and surveillance. The objective of this presentation is to introduce CWISGA and show why culturally responsive evaluation that begins with relationships and engagement is essential for better outcomes across the sector.

CWISGA provides an accessible framework that operationalises culturally responsive evaluation through clear principles aligned with the four Rs of reconciliation, respect, reciprocity and responsibility, and with the interconnected wisdoms of Knowing, Doing and Being.

Three key messages guide the work: embed cultural governance from the outset rather than as an afterthought, uphold Indigenous Data Sovereignty and governance, and interpret outcomes through holistic wellbeing and relational accountability.

The session will open with a concise framing of the developmental context in a national organisation that supports equity focused curriculum in schools, followed by a guided walk through the CWISGA principles and a brief case example. Interactivity will be promoted through a short yarning prompt and small group reflection on local application of CWISGA, followed by commitments to action to support translation into practice.

Author: Doyen Radcliffe, Bajja Yungayimanha Collaboration
Indigenous-led systems change often begins with shifts in cultural authority, relationships, trust and institutional behaviour—long before formal outcomes or policy reform become visible. Yet many evaluation approaches continue to prioritise measurable outputs and short-term results, overlooking the relational, cultural and ethical foundations that drive meaningful change. This creates a gap between what First Nations communities experience as impact and what institutions recognise as evidence.

This presentation introduces the Danjoo Koorliny Five-Dimensional Indigenous Influence Model, developed through the Aboriginal-led impact evaluation of the Danjoo Koorliny movement in Western Australia. The model offers a practical and culturally grounded way to measure systems change by identifying and assessing influence across cultural, relational, behavioural, structural and transformational domains. Central to this work is a decolonising evaluation process that repositions cultural authority, Country and relational accountability as the foundation of ethical and rigorous evaluation. For First Nations evaluation, this means privileging Elder governance, community decision-making, Indigenous Data Sovereignty and culturally grounded methods such as yarning, storywork and outcome harvesting. For evaluation more broadly, it expands how evidence, value and impact are understood in complex systems and supports earlier identification of meaningful change.

The session will highlight three key messages. First, influence is the primary mechanism and measurable pathway of Indigenous-led systems change. Second, decolonising evaluation strengthens methodological rigour by integrating Indigenous and Western approaches rather than positioning them in opposition. Third, valuing place, relationships and cultural integrity improves the relevance, integrity and usefulness of evaluation for communities, policymakers and funders.

The presentation will combine short input, reflective discussion and interactive activities. Participants will explore practical tools, apply the framework to their own contexts, and reflect on how measuring influence can strengthen systems thinking and evaluation practice across diverse sectors.

Authors: Martina Donkers, Julie Elliott

Professional isolation is an experience that, ironically, many evaluators share. As evaluators, we often find ourselves in a team of one – the only evaluator in the room, the only evaluator at the organisation, one bringing an evaluative lens to the problem. This can be hard. It can feel like people are turning to us for more answers than we have, or expecting something unrealistic. Sometimes we find ourselves feeling isolated due to our culture, our methodological approach or our disciplinary background.
There are structural ways isolation shows up – evaluators who work remotely in regional areas, evaluators who are self-employed, evaluators who balance their role with kids and family responsibilities. These experiences can leave us feeling like an outsider, with no one to test ideas, no one to help when the going gets rough, and no one to help grow our capabilities.
This panel session will explore AES members’ experiences of professional isolation, and what has worked (and not worked!) to help them combat it. We’ll present anonymised experiences from AES members about professional isolation to show attendees they aren’t alone.
We’ll then hear from 3 panellists at different stages of their professional journey, and what they’ve done to address professional isolation they’ve felt as evaluators. Finally, we’ll open the floor to questions – how can we feel more connected in our work? – and explore a range of ways that we can combat professional isolation in our field. This panel is presented by the AES Peer Group Mentoring Program Working Group, and considers how the program helps strengthen connection to peers. It also extends thinking beyond AES initiatives, and considers other ways that evaluators can combat professional isolation in a disconnected world. If you’ve ever felt lonely as an evaluator, this session is for you.

Why you should leave evaluation (and come back!)
Author: Delyth Lloyd, Australian Centre for Evaluation
After 15 years as an AES member, I stepped away from evaluation for a one-year hiatus. What began as a brief stint in an implementation role quickly transitioned into a fast and furious year using every evaluation skill I had to offer. I negotiated in hard spaces, navigated power dynamics, held space for diversity and ethical complexities. Busy people asked for more rubrics and used them in practice! This presentation distils insights from my transition out of, and back into, the sector. It reflects on the evaluation competencies we hold, and highlights how deeply they are valued by others.

The Evaluation Pub Test: Simple Questions for Public Value 
Author: Amanda Taylor-Short, ARTD
Publicly funded evaluations carry an implicit responsibility to contribute to public good. In practice, evaluations are often viewed as mechanisms for accountability in government decision‑making. This can reinforce a focus on compliance, program‑specific detail, and predefined questions, limiting broader reflection about the contribution of a program and leaving simple but important questions unexplored. This creates a missed opportunity to connect evaluation work with the people and decisions it exists to inform. This presentation explores the Evaluation Pub Test: examining evaluator responsibility to support public value, the benefits of answering simple questions, and considerations for deciding which questions are worth answering.

From scientist to evaluator: Lessons beyond numbers 
Author: Heather Bryan, First Person Consulting
This Ignite traces one evaluator’s unlikely journey from a postgraduate ecologist in Latin America to an honours student modelling climate impacts, and later a data analyst at the Australian Bureau of Statistics - before arriving at the unexpected doorstep of evaluation. Along the way came a new appreciation for the value of qualitative evidence. This talk shares three lessons motivated by moving beyond numbers: outliers are insights rather than errors, stories explain what numbers can’t, and subjectivity, when acknowledged rather than ignored, can strengthen evaluation. Together, these lessons invite a broader view of evidence, where individual stories bring meaning.

Bridging Sectors Through Evaluation: Lessons from a University–Community, Community of Practice
Author: Hannah Morgan, UTS
In 2025, the University of Technology Sydney partnered with Inner Sydney Voice (ISV) to co-design an Evaluation Community of Practice, connecting university evaluators and community practitioners. We reflect on lessons learned from the collaboration, including the value of shared ownership and relational trust in cross-sector work. Community practitioners strengthened their confidence and capability, while UTS deepened its understanding of how to adapt evaluation capacity building to meet the needs of the community sector context. The experience illustrated the mutual benefits of collaboration and the potential of Communities of Practice to advance evaluation through reciprocal learning.

Seeing through their eyes: Photo-Elicitation in Evaluation
Author: Estelle Gaillard, CSIRO
Images can ignite conversation, evoke emotions, elicit reflection and spark new ways of thinking. Photo-elicitation uses photographs in interviews to prompt participants to share insights into their lived experiences that might not surface through standard questions. This Ignite presentation will introduce the method, show practical examples of its use in evaluation and outline the photo-elicitation process. Attendees will leave reflecting on whether — and how — photo-elicitation could fit into their own evaluation toolkit.

Making Space for Boba and Beats: Valuing Grassroots Reality with an Evaluation MVP
Author: Anabelle (pin-chu) Chen, Taiwan Pride
For a volunteer-run grassroots NFP, traditional evaluation often occupies the very space intended for community action. When resources are scarce, every hour spent on data collection undermines the operational realities of the place where we operate. As the President and Evaluator of Taiwan Pride Sydney, I faced this tension at the 2026 Sydney Mardi Gras. How do you measure the cultural impact of a 'Lanterns of Ecstatica, Taiwan Lighting up Asia' float when the generator dies, the music cuts out, and you are forced to march giant illuminated bubble tea cups in total silence?
This Ignite presentation proposes a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for evaluation. By shifting the focus to macro-validation and systemic consequences, I will demonstrate how grassroots organisations can engineer a structurally sound evidentiary argument that survives real-world disaster. Using aggressive dimensionality reduction and cognitive anchoring, we can design evaluation MVPs that extract maximum validated learning with minimum administrative friction. Let's spill the tea on how to make space for rigorous evaluation when absolutely nothing goes to plan.

Authors: Alexander Gyles (La Trobe University), Allan Mua Illingworth (Muaakia Consulting), Glenda Napaljarri Wayne (La Trobe University), Mildred Napaljarri Spencer (La Trobe University), Raelene Jigili (Central Land Council), Marilyn Vilsoni (Solve Pacific)

“How might we most appropriately track and describe change about impact and wellbeing in Indigenous Australian and Fijian communities?”

Led by Indigenous community researchers and MEL practitioners, the session draws on two grounded case examples: the YWPP (Warlpiri Education and Training Trust, Tanami NT) approach to tracking learning and wellbeing, and community-centred MEL work supported by the Itaukei Trust Affairs Board (TTFB).

The session will be highly interactive: participants will break into small, facilitated groups with community and TTFB representatives to interrogate practice, and the table will close with a plenary synthesis that surfaces cross-case lessons, tensions, and practical next steps for culturally respectful MEL.

Authors: Samantha Abbato
Learning objective: Participants will be able to identify and practise managing the eight major enemies of evaluative thinking in evaluation contexts.

Why this skill matters: Even experienced evaluators fall prey to thinking traps. Individual biases (including emotional reasoning, fast thinking, confirmation bias and overconfidence) undermine rigour. Group biases such as in-group favouritism and cascading effects distort collective judgement. Noise, both between evaluators and within a single evaluator at different times, creates inconsistency in decisions and recommendations. Together, these eight enemies threaten the quality of evaluations at every stage: from scoping and data synthesis to communicating findings.

This session equips participants with practical strategies to recognise and manage these threats for clearer, more defensible evaluative thinking.

How the skill will be taught: Using the Thinking-Bee Obstacles board game, participants work in small groups through evaluation-based scenarios that activate each of the eight thinking enemies. The game provides ego-safe, attention-directing play. Participants think through bee personas rather than as themselves, making it easier to surface and examine real thinking traps. A brief facilitator-led debrief anchors the game experience to participants’ own evaluation practice.

How participants will engage: Participants will play the Thinking-Bee Obstacles game in small groups of four to six, applying the eight enemies of thinking to realistic evaluation decisions.

The session closes with a structured reflection linking game insights to participants’ own work contexts.

Authors: Jill Juliane Wai, Vanuatu Australia Education Support Program, Fremden Yanhambath, Vanuatu Australia Education Support Program, Ellis Silas, Vanuatu Skills Partnership

Author: Elisabeta Torava
Evaluation practice in Indigenous communities across the Pacific and Australia often rely on Western tools that overlook relational obligations, kinship structures, and place based ethics. This session introduces a practical, culturally grounded evaluation approach based on vanua ontology, a relational worldview that positions land, people, and relationships as inseparable. Drawing from my doctoral research with iTaukei communities in Fiji, the session demonstrates how evaluators can design and implement evaluations that honour Indigenous values, strengthen relational accountability, and generate findings that communities recognise as meaningful.
The objective is to demonstrate how evaluators can redesign Western tools and methods to honour Indigenous relational ethics, strengthen cultural integrity, and generate findings that communities recognise and relate with. This work is important because many evaluation tools used across the Pacific and Australia continue to erase relational systems, producing invisibility, misinterpretation, and unintended harm.
The core argument is that evaluation practice must shift from individualistic, decontextualised measures to relational, place‑based approaches grounded in Indigenous worldviews. Three key messages will be shared:
- Western evaluation tools often embed assumptions that conflict with Indigenous relational logics.
- Vanua‑aligned principles offer a culturally coherent foundation for ethical, rigorous evaluation.
- Practical redesign is possible when evaluators centre relationships, place, and collective wellbeing.
Designed as a skill‑building session, the presentation uses hands‑on activities rather than lecture. Participants will analyse a standard Western evaluation tool, identify where invisibility occurs, and collaboratively redesign selected questions using vanua‑based principles. A case vignette and mapping template will guide this process.
Interactivity is promoted through small‑group work, collective mapping, movement‑based clustering, and facilitated dialogue. Participants will leave with a practical mini‑framework and concrete tools they can apply immediately in their own evaluation practice.

Authors: Anna Rasalingam (Attorney-General’s Department), Daniel Maher (Attorney-General’s Department)
This presentation will demonstrate an example of an internal government evaluation team working with First Nations communities in both traditional and new ways.
It will cover the experience of a First Nations-led evaluation team evaluating a Federal Government program, actively overlaying culturally appropriate evaluation methods as they come up against historic government policies and commissioning practices. It will highlight these systemic barriers, our efforts to navigate these barriers to ensure First Nations voices are not only included but central.
From our experiences at the last AES conference, there was a re-occurring theme from fellow evaluators on working with First Nations communities with integrity. This presentation will provide an example of working with and centring First Nations voices.
Utilising the theme of “Walking in Two Worlds”, the presentation will explore dichotomies of traditional and new ways of evaluation within the public sector. Key points will include:

• Historical colonial barriers of commissioning, designing and implementing evaluations impacting First Nations peoples.
• Challenges of designing culturally responsive evaluations within this colonial paradigm.
• Centring First Nations voices, lived experiences, wisdom and perspectives.

The Big Room format would provide flexibility to facilitate culturally appropriate engagement and discussion, including impactful multi-media presentation and in-person discussions.
The presentation will include multiple perspectives of ACCOs engaged in the evaluation as well as the evaluation team.
The presentation will engage participants through inviting shared experiences tackling these barriers and challenges in their work.

Author: Kizzy Gandy, Jacaranda Partners

Learning objective: Participants will be able to construct core and alternative hypotheses from a theory of change, design evidence tests to distinguish between them and make defensible causal claims.

Contribution analysis is now widely used in Australian evaluation practice, but many evaluators stop short of the next step: systematically testing whether something other than the program explains the observed outcomes. Process tracing does exactly this. It raises the rigour of causal claims not by collecting more data, but by being more deliberate about what the data needs to show — and what it would need to show if the alternative explanation were true instead.

This workshop uses a real evaluation of the Embrace Multicultural Mental Health Project as a case study. The Embrace evaluation combined contribution analysis and process tracing with a mixed-method design including a quasi-experimental quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. It produced a result that many evaluations encounter but few handle well: the quantitative analysis found the program had no detectable effect on key outcomes, yet qualitative evidence suggested it was working. Process tracing provided the analytical framework to distinguish between three plausible explanations — the program failed, the effects take time to materialise, or competing programs are producing the same outcomes.

Participants work through three structured exercises: translating a theory of change into core and alternative hypotheses; designing evidence tests that can distinguish between them; and applying evaluator judgement to weight mixed evidence and reach a defensible conclusion. Each exercise uses the Embrace case, with reflection prompts connecting the method to participants' own evaluations.

The workshop is aimed at intermediate to advanced evaluators working on complex programs.

Authors: Nea Harrison, Pandanus Evaluation, Maria do Céu Lopes da Silva

Authors: Jillian Marsh, School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Kate Dixon, Schools Plus, Laura Bird, Paul Ramsay Foundation
This panel features panellists representing all layers of the evaluation ecosystem, and focuses on an evaluation conducted in remote schools in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. This panel discussion will centre on the question: How can we, as an evaluation ecosystem, make space and value place in the design and implementation of programs, projects, and evaluations?

Our panel includes a representative from the evaluation funders, the program facilitator and a community-based representative. The panel will be facilitated by a member of our evaluation and research team who is leading the project. The discussion will reflect on and unpack some of the realities of negotiating a place-based evaluation in remote communities, and how these reflections effect planning, design and delivery of evaluations. Our funders will explain their priorities, what they are aiming to achieve and why they are funding the evaluation, as well as explaining why a place-based approach is important to them.

The program facilitator will discuss how this evaluation project complements other existing projects, as well as how it was designed and why it was designed in that way. Our community-based representative will talk about their role in the project and the value that they bring through their community-based expertise, experience and relationships. This panel offers a unique look at how space is created for collaborative evaluation design and implementation, and how place can be centred throughout all stages of evaluation, even in a national project.

Cultural identity as a shield: Measuring the social value of Culture and Kinship
Authors: Louise Green, Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Lily Edwards
This presentation shares learnings from research by VACCHO and Victorian Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), exploring how strengthening Identity and Cultural connectedness and practice, drives positive long-term health and wellbeing outcomes.

Building on a 2022 evaluation of the Culture and Kinship Model, the research is driven and sustained by Aboriginal leadership and Cultural governance and uses a SROI methodology to understand drivers of change and inform future recommendations.

Supported by Kowa Collaboration, Aboriginal-led evaluation consultancy, the approach is grounded in culturally responsive stakeholder engagement — including Impact and Value Yarning — to enable participatory interpretation and translation of knowledge and evidence.

Presence builds trust: How place-based engagement transformed participation in NSW First Nations Digital Inclusion evaluation
Authors: Megan Brewer, Nous Group, Rodney Williams, Nous Group, Taliah King, Nous Group
Evaluating programs with First Nations communities requires time, presence, and trust. An evaluation of First Nations Digital Inclusion meant learning and adapting, shifting to a snowballing, place‑based approach – spending extended time in community and working with trusted navigators through a three-way partnership model. Participation increased substantially. Being physically present in remote and regional communities enabled rapport‑building, referrals, and engagement with people unlikely to participate through conventional methods. Higher participation led directly to stronger survey response numbers, deeper qualitative insights, and more credible evaluation findings. We show why investing time in-place, relationships, and partnership is central to evaluation quality.

Brokering and interpreting evaluation: An iTaukei experience
Author: Marilyn Vilisoni, Solve Pacific Consultancy
This presentation follows an iTaukei (Fijian) evaluator’s transition from a donor‑driven MEL role to independent consultancy, where evaluation becomes an act of brokering between donor logic and Indigenous priorities grounded in the preservation and revitalisation of iTaukei (Fijian) culture and traditions. It highlights three insights: (i) the evaluator’s role as a cultural broker navigating the space between external accountability and Indigenous values; (ii) the importance of cultural humility, emotional intelligence, and comfort with ambiguity in this intermediary work; and (iii) the centrality of trust in shaping MEL systems that honour both accountability requirements and the lived realities of Pacific communities.

Ethics for Evaluation
Author: Trina O'Donnell, Bellberry
Why do we have ethics reviews, who makes up the HREC, and when is a HREC review required? What are common issues that arise in the review of evaluations from the HREC perspective?

How can these be addressed to make the ethics application process smoother? The session will focus on the ethics review in contexts such as community-based evaluation, and policy or program evaluation, and we will explore issues that arise from the ethics review from Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) for evaluation.

Practical insights from HREC reviews will exemplify common issues from a HREC perspective. Examples of common HREC comments will introduce issues including study design, consent, community engagement,  respecting Indigenous perspectives and local knowledge, managing language and cultural differences, and responding ethically to the growing use of artificial intelligence and data technologies in evaluation.

Shifting the power: evaluation enabled, embedded and used in local contexts
Authors: Jessie Meaney-Davis Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Satib Nisha Khan Khan, Birth Fiji, Mary Raori, Australian Volunteers Program (Fiji)
Evaluations in international development – particularly organisational capacity assessments - are often experienced by organisations in Asia and the Pacific as a compliance requirement: externally driven, time-bound, and disconnected from daily decision-making. This paper presents insights from an alternative model in which 14 organisations in Fiji, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam – including organisations with no prior research experience - led their own participatory research on organisational capacity strengthening over three years, supported by the Australian Volunteers Program and the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney.

A representative from BIRTH Fiji, one of the participating organisations, shares three interrelated shifts in power that emerged through this approach. First, the model created space for organisational learning and reflection in a context that was previously dominated by delivery pressures and compliance-driven MEL. By embedding evaluative inquiry into organisational routines, evaluation shifted from a reporting requirement to a practice that supports sense-making, adaptation, and strategic thinking.

Second, by leading the evaluation themselves, with structured support rather than external control, staff developed confidence, skills and ownership of both the process and findings. Evaluation did not only assess organisational capacity strengthening, but it also actively contributed to it. The role of external actors shifted from conducting evaluation to enabling and scaffolding locally led inquiry.

Third, the process fostered peer learning across 14 organisations, creating a horizontal network of exchange and mutual support. This redistributed knowledge and influence away from donor-centric models towards collaboration grounded in shared regional experience.

These findings suggest that shifting the power in evaluation requires more than participatory methods, it requires repositioning evaluation as an embedded organisational practice, led locally and sustained over time. The paper offers practical implications for evaluators and commissioners seeking to move beyond evaluation as a product towards approaches that are owned, used, and valued in local contexts. 

Authors: Dana Cross, Piacarmel Andrews, Lyn Alderman

Across sectors, evaluators are increasingly seeking to move beyond assessing programs to shaping strategy, informing investment, strengthening accountability and supporting learning. Recent initiatives such as the Strengthening Evaluation in the Australian Government – Action Plan 2026–2030, with its emphasis on evaluation leadership, culture and use (and a call for Chief Evaluation Officers), reflect a broader trend: evaluation is being positioned as a core contributor to governance and decision making rather than a purely technical or advisory function.

This shift raises a provocative and timely question for the evaluation community: is there room in the C-suite for evaluators?

The presenters will explore whether closer proximity to executive power is necessary to strengthen evaluation’s influence and what might be gained or lost in the process. Rather than assuming that seniority automatically delivers impact, the discussion will examine different models of leadership, authority and positioning for evaluation across diverse organisational contexts.

Presenters will explore tensions such as:

• Whether executive level access enhances evaluation use or risks compromising independence and credibility.
• How evaluation leadership can be exercised without formal C suite roles.
• What “good” evaluation leadership looks like in different sectors, cultures and places

Drawing on lived experience from across settings, the panel will reflect on how evaluation currently shows up, or fails to show up, in senior decision making forums, and what alternatives exist for strengthening its influence. Audience pulse questions will be used to give live insights to broader experiences and views, with time for questions at the end of the session inviting participants to share perspectives from their own contexts and challenge assumptions about status, power and professional identity in evaluation.

Authors: Zina Baghi (NSW Department Of Education), Annette Waters (NSW Department Of Education)
What happens when evaluation is asked to make sense of a program that simultaneously spans curriculum reform, evidence-based resource design, data analytics and school capability-building - across thousands of schools, amid widespread disruption? This paper presents the findings of a process evaluation of a large-scale government education program and uses that experience to interrogate what evaluation distinctively contributes when it operates at the boundaries of multiple disciplines, sectors and organisational roles.
Operating within a complex policy space - where multiple related initiatives ran concurrently, each targeting overlapping aspects of school improvement - the program layered differentiated support from self-directed access to quality-assured, evidence-based resources, through to shoulder-to-shoulder guidance from educational leaders. Evaluating this required the team to engage fluently with education research, data analytics, evidence-based pedagogy, professional learning design and school improvement methodology - not as a methodological luxury, but as a necessity for understanding what was working, for whom, and why.
The evaluation also operated across organisational boundaries. Two evaluation teams, one embedded within the program's delivery unit, the other in a central evaluation function, worked concurrently on different components, with findings integrated into a shared report. This arrangement surfaces rarely examined questions about co-production, methodological consistency and what happens to evaluation's integrity when the boundary between evaluator and implementer is not just navigated but structurally blurred.
The findings reveal where bridges within the program held and where they fractured: between system policy intent and school-level practice, between co-designed improvement partnerships and variable local capacity, and between a program designed predominantly for primary schools and a secondary sector left largely overlooked. For the evaluation community, this paper argues that understanding these fractures - and building the cross-disciplinary bridges needed to address them - is precisely where evaluation's value is most needed, and most often undersold.

Authors: Giulia Capuzzo NSW DCCEEW, Liam Downing, Transport NSW, Tess Gordon, PLACE
Evaluators increasingly face the challenge of conducting  evaluation in complex systems where diverse voices, shifting power dynamics and competing priorities shape both the process and products of evaluative work. This presentation shares practical insights from a Signs of Success (SoS) framework as applied in the NSW Department of Education. The framework is an adaptive impact measurement and reporting approach that foregrounds stakeholder engagement, transparency and shared ownership.

The session explores the cogeneration of concise sets of sequential outcome measures from full program theories with evaluators and program owners. We will demonstrate how this supported participatory evaluation practice by recognising stakeholder values and redistributing power in evidence generation. To support equity in program outcomes, the Signs of Success also surfaced enabling conditions, shifting conversations from sole attribution to the evaluand toward systemic responsibility.

We also found that strong relationships and ongoing skill‑building formed the foundations of the collaboration between evaluators and program owners. Building a strong evaluative culture was essential for conversations around prioritisation of resources as the program matured along its path of impact.

Our objective in this session is to demonstrate how evaluators can embed integrity, inclusion and accountability within system-level evaluation processes while supporting program improvement and public value. By fostering transparent decision making and adaptive processes, we will show how this approach created space for open dialogue about progress, uncertainty and failure where program owners felt confident using evidence to guide decisions, even at the highest levels of governance and accountability.

This session will appeal to intermediate and advanced evaluators who regularly work with leaders and decision makers. It aligns with the Roots and Routes theme by showcasing how evaluation can strengthen evaluative culture, improve communication with decisionmakers and ensure evaluation remains credible amid increasing complexity.

Authors: Sarah Jane Springer (Springer Health Consultants), Catherine Boekel (Whereto Research)
Evaluation involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has historically positioned First Nations engagement as a consultation activity occurring after evaluation priorities, frameworks and methods have already been determined. Even approaches framed as co-design can unintentionally reproduce existing power structures in knowledge generation and limit the capacity of evaluation to reflect First Nations governance, priorities and ways of knowing.

This paper introduces the Culturally Governed Evaluation Framework, an emerging methodological approach that embeds First Nations authority within the governance structures that determine evaluation purpose, design, interpretation and accountability. In this approach, engagement is not positioned as advisory input, but as a governance function within the evaluation system itself.

The framework is grounded in three interconnected principles:

• First Nations authority, embedding leadership within governance structures that shape priorities and definitions of success;
• Relational accountability, ensuring evaluation is grounded in trust, reciprocity and sustained engagement; and
• Shared interpretation, enabling findings to be interpreted through First Nations knowledge systems with shared authority in meaning-making.

By foregrounding governance and relational accountability, this approach contributes to national discussions on ethics, power and methodological legitimacy. It aligns with reform agendas including the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and has direct implications for how evaluation is commissioned, governed and interpreted across government, research and community settings.

The presentation will invite critical reflection on how culturally governed approaches can reshape evaluation practice and strengthen both the legitimacy and effectiveness of evaluation outcomes.

Author: Victoria Pilbeam (SPC), India Lynn (SPC)

How many robust evaluations get left on shelves? What can we do when good evaluations are overlooked? The true value of evaluative practice lies not in the reports or their recommendations, but what comes after, how we use them to broker organisational change is the route to success.
To ground these questions, our session will use a case study on capability development – a fundamental part of our work at the Pacific Community (SPC) Fisheries Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems division. At SPC, our scientists and technical staff travel across the Pacific delivering training on a wide range of topics with the goal of enhancing the sustainable management and economic, food security, and cultural benefits of Pacific fisheries. Our capability development aims to achieve change on the ground, in the ministries, communities and industries of our member countries and territories. But successive evaluations have told us that, despite all this training, we are not necessarily seeing the desired results and that we need to explore different modalities to bring about true capability strengthening.
So, how did we dust off these evaluations and use them to chart a new pathway to impact? In this session, we will discuss how we used a combination of behaviour change research, co-design, and organisational change management to move the dial using existing reviews. This approach is rooted in theoretical, cultural and contextual considerations, including behaviour change models and Pacific pedagogies. Our paper will illustrate how taking a grounded approach can make evaluation relevant and learning strategic. Whilst, inviting participants to reflect on their own experiences and their roles in shepherding evaluations from good recommendations towards genuine organisational change.    

Author: Dimitria Gavalyugova, NSW Department of Education
Evaluators face a core dilemma: decision-makers typically expect a definitive measure of program impact, yet the designs capable of delivering one are rarely feasible for large-scale government programs. Quasi-experimental methods and administrative data are often the only tools available to quantify long-term outcomes, but the assumptions needed to establish causal impact cannot always be met – or tested – with available data. This mismatch has driven evaluations into a sub-optimal equilibrium where uncertainty is understated, even though addressing it could lead to better-informed decisions. This presentation explores how to reconcile the need for reporting actionable findings with what the evidence can support.

The session draws on systematic analysis of the 22 combined outcome and economic evaluations published in the NSW Treasury library. By mapping the confidence of causal language attributing outcomes to programs across report sections, the analysis identifies a persistent "within-document gap." In many cases, findings are treated as causal in executive summaries and recommendations, even when underlying methodologies note that they should be interpreted with caution. Scoring each estimation strategy against a risk-of-bias framework reveals observable misalignment between evaluations’ methodological constraints and the confidence of causal claims.

When causality is uncertain, the program effect that gets monetised in economic evaluations contains the true impact plus some degree of bias. Existing guidance addresses uncertainty around monetary parameters and discount rates, but not around estimated program impacts. In the absence of such guidance, the evidence shows that potentially biased estimates routinely enter cost-benefit analyses as true effects. Using an anonymised real-world example, the presentation demonstrates how even small levels of bias can alter benefit-cost ratios and funding recommendations.

The session invites participants to collectively explore practical solutions across four areas: leveraging available methods and data to strengthen evidence, turning limitations into guidance for future evaluation design, communicating uncertainty effectively, and modelling uncertain impacts within economic analyses.

Author: Carina Calzoni, AES Rob Sale, nous

The AES has been exploring its vision of “quality evaluation that makes a difference” through a strategic project - engaging members and examining evaluation theory and practice. This work has surfaced a central challenge: while the phrase is compelling, its meaning is complex, contested, and shaped by context.

This roundtable begins from that complexity—but does not seek to resolve it. Instead, it focuses on what comes next.
We will briefly share insights from the journey so far, including the multiple dimensions of “evaluation”, “quality”, and “making a difference”. These span tensions between evaluation as process, product, and profession; competing perspectives on quality (e.g. standards, utility, impact, values); and diverse understandings of use and influence across contexts and stakeholders.

The primary purpose of the session is to co-design how this conversation continues across the AES community. Participants will engage in facilitated small-group discussions to explore key questions: What does quality evaluation mean in your context? Who defines it? What does “making a difference” look like—and for whom? How should these conversations evolve as contexts, practice, and membership change?

Participants will then work together to identify practical ways to sustain and deepen engagement, such as ongoing communities of practice, publications, podcasts, or future conference formats. The session will capture and share these ideas to inform AES’s ongoing work.

Designed for intermediate to advanced evaluators, this roundtable creates space for collective reflection and future-oriented dialogue. By centring plurality and participation, it supports the AES vision by keeping the conversation alive—recognising that what constitutes “quality evaluation that makes a difference” must continue to evolve with the field.

Authors: Kate Cherry, CSIRO, Jake Clark, CSIRO, David Marchant, Inform Economics
Stepping into the unknown and daunting space of economic evaluation represented a new challenge for the Impact and Evaluation team in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Education and Outreach. In collaboration with our more experienced guide, external consultant Inform Economics, we successfully delivered a cost benefit analysis of CSIRO’s Generation STEM Links program, funded by the New South Wales Government through the Science and Industry Endowment Fund. This evaluation generated valued learnings for all involved and created new impact evidence. This economic evidence was utilised by our program delivery and industry engagement teams and was significant to our government funders and current public policy.

Economic evaluations are a rare approach in program evaluation, and almost non-existent in the STEM education sector, which prioritises learning outcomes and lacks economic evaluation capability. Navigating between theory and the realities of practice to deliver a cost-benefit analysis was challenging; by sharing our experiences and learnings we aim to inspire others to take up the challenge.

As Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO has been engaging partners in STEM education programs and evaluations for over 40 years. The Impact and Evaluation team is generating and sharing new evidence to inform practice and decision-making in our work and the STEM education ecosystem.

This session features insights from CSIRO and Inform Economics, with a focus on their collaboration to undertake a cost benefit analysis. This session will cover:

•deciding to undertake an economic evaluation
•data collection and analysis methods used
•capabilities required to do a CBA
•findings from the Generation STEM Links cost-benefit analysis
•experiences of this cross-sector partnership
•key lessons learned from the project and future implications

This session will be of interest to those have undertaken or are considering undertaking an economic evaluation.

Authors: Patricia Rogers, Footprint Evaluation Initiative, Emil Laurberg Morgensen, University of Southern Denmark
Theories of change are now commonly used to design initiatives, including projects, programs and policies, and to shape monitoring and evaluation.  But 40 years after first being showcased at an AES conference, these are often developed and used in ways that don’t fit what is needed, especially to support adaptation across different settings and in changing contexts.  This session will present common mistakes, what they are, why they matter, and examples of better strategies.  Participants will engage with exercises to identify issues, try out strategies and explore possible applications in their own work and in shaping organisational requirements and procedures.

Author: Lucie Moore, Commonwealth Treasury
Across governments, there is growing recognition of the need to make space for high quality evidence and embed evaluation into policy design and decision‑making. This presentation examines what two national governments, the UK and Australia, are doing to improve the quality, quantity and use of evaluation across the public sector, drawing on my personal experience working within both the UK Government’s Evaluation Task Force (ETF) and the Australian Government’s Australian Centre for Evaluation (ACE).

In the UK, the ETF is a joint Cabinet Office–HM Treasury unit established to ensure that evidence and evaluation sit “at the heart of spending decisions”. It works to improve how government programmes are evaluated, providing advice on designing and delivering evaluations and challenging departments to be transparent by including evaluations on the publicly accessible, Evaluation Registry website. The ETF also leads cross‑government capability building, including the Evaluation Academy, which has trained hundreds of evaluation experts who have in turn trained thousands of public servants on evaluation. These initiatives aim to expand both the volume and quality of evaluation activity and strengthen its use in decision‑making.

In Australia, ACE was established to “put evaluation evidence at the heart of policy design and decision‑making,” with a mandate to improve the volume, quality and use of evaluation evidence across government. ACE supports the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy, strengthens evaluation capability, delivers evaluations, and improves evaluation planning in the budget process. Together, these reforms seek to build an evaluative culture across the Australian Public Service.

The objective of this presentation is to share these cross‑government efforts with the wider evaluation community, highlighting traditions and new ways, boundaries and bridges, and the roots and routes shaping reform, and to provide space for attendees to ask questions and explore implications.

Authors: Nicholas Hill Place Australia, Eve Millar, Place Australia
The use of place-based initiatives (PBIs) to address complex and entrenched disadvantage is expanding across Australia. These initiatives typically go beyond the delivery of single programs and involve cross-sector partnerships that place communities at the centre of efforts to address local problems. While a growing number of initiatives are demonstrating impact, the diversity of approaches, frameworks, and indicators used contributes to a fragmented evidence base. Inconsistencies in how impact is conceptualised and reported limit opportunities for shared learning and present a barrier to the growth and sustainability of the place-based ecosystem.

PLACE Australia is working collaboratively with stakeholders across the ecosystem—including government, philanthropy, not-for-profits, and community organisations—to develop a shared impact framework with a set of flexible indicators that more consistently demonstrate the impact of PBIs, support ongoing learning, and strengthen the sector. As the framework moves from development to implementation, a number of practical challenges arise. These include how shared indicators can be applied flexibly across diverse initiatives, how to balance consistency with local adaptation, how frameworks can support learning rather than compliance, and how Indigenous knowledge and community voice can be embedded in practice.

This roundtable brings together evaluators and practitioners to explore these challenges and identify practical pathways for implementation. Through facilitated discussion, participants will share their practice insights on implementation opportunities, risk and design considerations. The discussion will inform the next phase of testing and implementation of the shared impact framework.

Participants will be invited to reflect on the following questions:

1.How can shared indicators be consistently applied across diverse place-based initiatives while remaining meaningful to local contexts?

2.How can shared impact approaches support learning and improvement without becoming compliance-driven reporting requirements?

3.What risks and opportunities should be considered when implementing shared impact approaches across the place-based ecosystem?

4.What is needed to support the implementation and uptake of the shared impact framework across the sector?

Authors: Arun Jyothi Callapilli (Policy Performance) Charlie Tulloch (Policy Performance) 

The session focuses on building skills in designing infographics and making effective data visualisation choices to enhance evaluation reporting. The session objective is to equip new and experienced evaluators with practical skills to transform traditional evaluation reports into clear, engaging and actionable visual based outputs.

This is important because evaluation reports are often text heavy and dense with evidence and associate findings. However, without effective visualisation, critical insights may be overlooked or misunderstood. Infographics can help bridge this gap by transforming evaluation evidence and findings into clear, engaging visual reports that enhance reader understanding and engagement and are more likely to be used.

The session is grounded in utilisation-focused evaluation principles (developed by Michael Quinn Patton), emphasising the importance of designing reports that facilitate use and effectively communicate significant findings to intended audiences.

The session’s main aims are to share and build knowledge and skills in:
•    visual data story telling techniques
•    applying effective design principles
•    understanding the strengths and limitations of different visual choices
•    accessibility considerations
•    avoiding common data visualisation pitfalls
•    tips and techniques on creating infographics
•    promoting consistency and accessibility in data presentations

This is a skill-building session using real-life case studies. Attendees will explore a range of tools, tips and visualisation choices, making live design decisions. They will work in small groups round tables to discuss options and apply principles of good design to create their own visuals, creating a collaborative and participatory learning environment.

Authors: Nathan Towney, University of Newcastle, Matt Lumb, University of Newcastle, Monica McKenzie, University of Newcastle, Rhyall Gordon, University of Newcastle, James Ballangarry, University of Newcastle
This panel explores how evaluation in higher education can actively make space for diverse perspectives while valuing place—the cultural, relational, and institutional contexts in which programs unfold. Drawing on work within the University of Newcastle’s Engagement and Equity Division, the session examines how ethical evaluation can be enacted in practice when working across complex social justice initiatives.

We argue that dominant, compliance-oriented and metrics-driven approaches often fail to recognise place-based realities, marginalise diverse knowledges, and obscure power relations. In response, the panel foregrounds evaluation as a relational and ethically situated practice that must engage with questions of voice, inclusion, and accountability. This involves not only methodological choices, but also deliberate strategies to create space for stakeholders—particularly those historically excluded—to shape how problems, success, and evidence are defined.

Panel contributions highlight three interconnected practices. First, Indigenous-led and culturally responsive approaches demonstrate how evaluation can shift from extractive processes to reciprocal, place-based relationships grounded in trust and responsibility to community. Second, critical and post-structural perspectives support evaluators to interrogate how “problems” are constructed, making visible whose values and assumptions are prioritised. Third, collaborative design processes offer practical ways to navigate competing priorities, recognise power dynamics, and uphold ethical commitments across diverse contexts.

Through examples spanning NSW school policy evaluation, university program evaluation, and cross-sector collaborations, the panel reflects on what ethical evaluation looks like in practice—particularly how evaluators can create inclusive spaces, acknowledge limitations and failures, and contribute to more just and contextually credible evaluation approaches.

Authors: Lucy Walker, Nation Partners, Justine Smith, Nation Partners
Participatory evaluation is widely regarded as best practice for producing useful, ethical, and contextually grounded insights, particularly in community-based programs. Yet in practice, participatory approaches sometimes unfold in ways that are more complex, unpredictable, and sometimes unsuccessful than anticipated.

This presentation explores what happens when participatory evaluation does not go to plan, and what we can learn from these experiences. The objective of this session is to have a frank conversation about when participation doesn’t go as planned and to inspire more realistic, context-sensitive approaches to designing and implementing participatory evaluation.

The presenters (two) will draw on their experiences and examples to propose three key messages.

- Participation can’t always be assumed or expected- it is shaped by interests, relationships, perceived value and capacity with competing priorities.
- Misalignment between stakeholders (e.g. partners, community members, project funders, and evaluators) can present central challenges.
- When things don’t go according to plan it presents an opportunity for valuable insight and reflection and shouldn’t be avoided.

Through exploring cases where stakeholders are disengaged, where expectations diverge and methods don’t go to plan, we will surface the barriers and enablers to applying participatory methods in practice.

The presenters will share their experiences and insights with embedded survey via QR code to capture attendees reflections along the way. We will also explore methods and strategies to better understand stakeholder context, identify and plan for risks, and adapt approaches in the midst of delivery.

Author: Annabel Prescott (Traction for Young People), Samantha Garbutt (Traction for Young People)
Youth program evaluation faces a critical ethical question: Who is evaluation data for?

Drawing on Feedback Informed Treatment principles and youth empowerment frameworks, this presentation argues that when young people engage with their own data to understand and celebrate their growth, evaluation becomes a tool for agency rather than extraction.

Using TRACTION, a Queensland youth mentoring organisation, as a case study, we examine how internationally validated screening tools serve young people first and organisational learning second. Young people complete visual assessments at program entry, engage with their progress through facilitated conversations during the program, and review before-and-after results at completion. They keep their own copies and use their data in conversations with family, teachers, and others. This process makes visible the work young people have done, enabling them to name and claim their own progress.

The presentation explores three critical tensions:

1. How do we design evaluation that acknowledges young people as active participants in their own change process, not passive subjects of measurement?
2. What shifts when we position self-awareness and celebration as primary evaluation outcomes, with strategic metrics as secondary?
3. How do we ensure data collection practices honour young people's agency rather than extracting information purely for organisational purposes?

We present real examples of facilitated data conversations, visual assessment tools, and moments when young people recognise their own growth through evidence. When evaluation is grounded in participant empowerment, where people understand, acknowledge, and celebrate their own growth, it creates a foundation for ethical strategic data use.

This approach transfers to evaluation with any structurally marginalised population: First Nations communities, people experiencing disadvantage, or those marginalised by traditional service systems. Attendees will leave with critical questions for examining whether their own evaluation practices serve participant agency or organisational needs first

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 
Sunet Jordaan, Heart Foundation, Jacinta Hegarty, Heart Foundation
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 lead culturally safe education and advocacy about ARF and RHD their community. In 2025, the Heart Foundation delivered a Champions4Change workshop designed to strengthen knowledge, confidence and leadership skills among Champions. Evaluating this workshop required methods that were not only effective but culturally grounded and inclusive for participants with diverse languages, cultures and lived experiences.

This presentation shares the innovative evaluation approach used to assess knowledge gained, confidence built and participants’ workshop experience. Instead of conventional surveys, evaluators used Yarning circles, storytelling, and visual self-assessment tools. It created a culturally safe environment where Champions could express themselves in ways aligned with community ways of knowing, being and doing. First Nations facilitators who have built relationships with the champions presented the workshop. Champions placed themselves along a visual “road journey” to represent shifts in confidence. They described their understanding of ARF/RHD before and after training through yarning conversations and reflected on the workshop through group storytelling discussions. This approach produced richer and more meaningful insights than traditional surveys alone.

Three key messages will be highlighted:
1.Culturally grounded methods generate deeper, more authentic evaluation insights than commonly used evaluation tools amongst First Nations Peoples.
2.Visual and narrative approaches improve accessibility.
3.Evaluation can make space for lived experience leadership and self determination.

The session will include demonstrations of the visual scaling tools used in the evaluation, along with examples of themes, quotes and insights generated through the evaluation. This will show how culturally grounded methods can strengthen the quality and depth of evaluation findings. This presentation is aimed at foundational and intermediate evaluators interested in practical, culturally responsive techniques that support inclusive evaluation practice.
Agile Evaluation Approaches to Combatting Antisemitism in Australia
Author: Linda Gyorki, Allen and Clarke, Milo McKay, Allen and Clarke
his presentation makes the case for agile evaluation by demonstrating what methodological responsiveness looks like in practice through a real-world evaluation of place-based initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism and strengthening social cohesion.

Agile evaluation is increasingly essential. As global political developments, rising social polarisation, and the rapid spread of misinformation reshape local community dynamics, evaluators working in complex and sensitive environments can no longer rely on fixed designs. This presentation shows how evaluation can adapt without sacrificing rigour or credibility when the ground keeps shifting.

Three key lessons from this evaluation illustrate what agile practice looks like in action. First, polarisation affects who participates and how. Political and social tensions shape stakeholders' willingness and capacity to engage, making trust-building and relationship maintenance core evaluation competencies. Second, iterative data collection is essential. Multiple cycles of data gathering and reflection allow evaluators to surface emerging issues, adjust methods, and stay relevant as community dynamics evolve. Third, responsiveness itself builds credibility. When evaluation processes visibly adapt to local events and stakeholder realities, findings become more useful and the evaluation earns greater trust from the communities it serves.

Aligning with the conference theme "Making space, valuing place," the presentation examines how local evaluation practice must remain grounded in community experience even as it responds to broader global forces.
The session will be delivered as a concise 15-minute presentation with slides, sharing practical insights and methodological lessons for evaluators working in politically dynamic environments. Participants will be invited to reflect briefly on agility challenges in their own contexts, with the session closing on guided discussion prompts around navigating sensitivity, responding to external events, and maintaining rigour through adaptation.
Co-design and evaluation as bridges: An adaptive approach to delivering technology for coral reef conservation
Authors: Emily Maher, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Britta Schaffelke, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Ashton Gainsford, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Yashika Nand, Australian Institute of Marine Science, L.V. Nguyen, Institute of Oceanography, Glenda Cadigal, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, D. Metali, Department of Fisheries Brunei Darussalam, Manuel Gonzalez Rivero, Australian Institute of Marine Science
Delivering multilateral science and technology-based conservation projects require working across disciplinary, sectoral, cultural and institutional boundaries. This involves engagement and partnership with multiple and diverse stakeholders, navigating unfamiliar governance structures and adapting to local conventions; complexities that are evident in coral reef monitoring and management in Southeast Asia. Here, efforts are also constrained by limited resources, capacity and capability and are often delivered in isolation, reducing their overall impact in supporting conservation efforts.

We present the adaptive project management and evaluation approaches used by the Australian Instit

Authors: Anne Stephens, Ethos of Engagement, Jill Thomas
This presentation explores the design of a systemic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for counter-trafficking in persons (CTIP) in the ASEAN region. Developed in 2023, the system supports the adoption and implementation of three victim-centred and gender-sensitive guides for counter trafficking in persons, in use across ASEAN member states. The presentation focuses on how systemic, participatory approaches to evaluation design can enhance uptake of evaluation and the role of a well-designed framework to support the capacity of individuals to monitor and evaluate their work.  

The objective of this presentation is to present the process used to develop a simple to use M&E system within a complex setting; show the public facing guidance documents and tools used to support novice and highly skilled evaluators to use the system; and describe our challenges and learnings.

This presentation offers a timely and practice-grounded contribution to the evaluation field by demonstrating how evaluators can design for relevance, capacity development and impact in complex, real-world settings. It provides actionable insights for practitioners seeking to strengthen the value and use of evaluation in increasingly uncertain and contested environments.

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!

Authors: John Guenther, Batchelor Institute, Nicole Tujague, Southern Cross University, Anthea Rutter, Honorary Research Fellow, Jeffery Adams, Eastern Institute of Technology
The editorial team of the Evaluation Journal of Australasia publishes a broad range of evaluation articles covering evaluation practice, theory, and application. One of the issues that regularly arises for reviewers and editors is the depth of thinking expressed in manuscripts. In most cases this concern could be addressed with more critical thinking, particularly in manuscripts that describe evaluation findings, or discuss elements of evaluation practice.

In this interactive session the editorial team will discuss how to write with a more critical approach. This may be of value, not just in writing for journal articles, but in reports, and in framing evaluation recommendations, developing theories of change, logic models and discussing evaluation implications.

We will first discuss what ‘critical thinking’ means from theoretical and practical perspectives, before providing some examples of how writing can be changed from being a largely uncritical and surface level description, towards a deeper critical approach that engages with theory, with existing literature and with logic, judgement and arguments aligned with evaluative thinking.

We will conclude the session with some practical examples that participants can work through together and discuss with the broader group. Our intent is to help evaluators and anyone who writes reports and articles to enrich their writing so that readers can draw conclusions based on evidence, argument, reasoning and logic, while at the same time ensuring clarity and easy reading.

Author: Annabel Prescott, Traction For Young People
Youth program evaluation faces a critical ethical question: Who is evaluation data for?

Drawing on Feedback Informed Treatment principles and youth empowerment frameworks, this presentation argues that when young people engage with their own data to understand and celebrate their growth, evaluation becomes a tool for agency rather than extraction.

Using TRACTION, a Queensland youth mentoring organisation, as a case study, we examine how internationally validated screening tools serve young people first and organisational learning second. Young people complete visual assessments at program entry, engage with their progress through facilitated conversations during the program, and review before-and-after results at completion. They keep their own copies and use their data in conversations with family, teachers, and others. This process makes visible the work young people have done, enabling them to name and claim their own progress.

The presentation explores three critical tensions:

1. How do we design evaluation that acknowledges young people as active participants in their own change process, not passive subjects of measurement?
2. What shifts when we position self-awareness and celebration as primary evaluation outcomes, with strategic metrics as secondary?
3. How do we ensure data collection practices honour young people's agency rather than extracting information purely for organisational purposes?

We present real examples of facilitated data conversations, visual assessment tools, and moments when young people recognise their own growth through evidence. When evaluation is grounded in participant empowerment, where people understand, acknowledge, and celebrate their own growth, it creates a foundation for ethical strategic data use.

This approach transfers to evaluation with any structurally marginalised population: First Nations communities, people experiencing disadvantage, or those marginalised by traditional service systems. Attendees will leave with critical questions for examining whether their own evaluation practices serve participant agency or organisational needs first.

Author: Themis Antony, Beyond Blue
This session will provide an overview of a practical approach utilised by Beyond Blue to develop an engaging, streamlined and systematic approach to capturing evaluation-ready outcomes data.

Objective and key messages:
The objective of the session is to share how traditional and adapted approaches were used to develop a core outcomes dataset that heavily engaged staff in the process, while factoring in the inherent challenges of defining, collecting and using outcomes data within the multi-faceted operating environment in which Beyond Blue works.

The key element of the approach was its deliberate focus on making space for, and meaningfully engaging, staff across the organisation to shape the outcomes development process. Rather than being imposed, the approach was co-developed with staff and embedded in day-to-day practice. This resulted in a network of interrelated program logic models that are owned by individual program areas.
The data generated through this approach is also owned by program areas and used to inform evaluations and is actively owned by staff at all levels. Insights are shared widely, including with community members, government and corporate funders, donors and sector colleagues, supporting transparency, accountability and collective learning.

The session will include a practical demonstration of the logic models in action, showing how they are used to guide decision making, monitor progress and support evaluation.

Overall, the session aims to share a practical approach to outcomes measurement, provide an example of how to bridge the evaluation gap for staff who may be less familiar with data collection, and demonstrate how strong evaluation and research integrity can be maintained while building organisational evaluation capacity.

Interactivity:
Time will be set aside for interactive discussion and debate, enabling participants to reflect on how similar approaches could be adapted to their own organisational contexts and how the approach could be enhanced.