aes26 International Evaluation Conference

Author: Alice Muller, World Vision
Evaluators and development practitioners need to understand how environmental changes impact and result from development programming.  Often finding practical ways to do is a challenge, particularly where complex environmental, biodiversity and climate systems are involved, and where evaluators and practitioners come from social or economic backgrounds with limited biophysical or ecological training. This paper shares how we can better value place and understand environmental consequences in international development projects by letting evaluations be locally-led, with local knowledge and values at the center.

Drawing on real‑world examples from World Vision’s Regreening Communities work, the paper presents three simple tools used by communities t Together, these approaches value place by centring local and Indigenous knowledge and values, assessing change from a local perspective, in a standardised way and using spatial tools that together still contribute to organisational‑level evidence.

First, a community mapping and planning exercise makes space for diverse groups within a community to define what regreening and wellbeing mean in their own environments, surfacing cultural, livelihood and social values that are often invisible in standard indicator frameworks. Second, a community‑assessed Regreening Index provides a structured and repeatable way to assess biophysical conditions and trends over time in relation to community priorities, while still enabling consistent comparison across sites and projects. Third, spatial mapping of regreening sites using a powerful, but freely available tool adapted from the WASH sector, enables evaluators to examine patterns and cumulative effects at project and organisational levels.

While none of these tools is unique in isolation, when combined they lower barriers to including environmental considerations in evaluation practice and generate insights that strengthen learning, adaptive management and sustainability discussions, ethically. The presentation will share engaging practical examples and invite participants to reflect on opportunities to better value place within their own work.

Author: Jess Dart, Clear Horizon
This paper introduces the Collective Noticing Method (CNM) and explores its relevance for measurement, evaluation and learning (MEL). Developed by the author, CNM offers evaluators and changemakers a collaborative way to notice, learn from, and respond to subtle and emerging changes. It is a rigorous yet flexible method with a strong focus on learning and collective sensemaking, well suited to the “messy middle” of systems change and place-based work. It also has potential for community and grassroots work, program portfolios, and research impact tracking.

Collective noticing as a practice has a long history, evident in approaches such as Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change (MSC), citizen science, ripple effect monitoring, and context monitoring. More recently, this practice has been enabled and accelerated by emerging digital platforms and AI. Building on these foundations, CNM intentionally harnesses the eyes and ears of those implementing and experiencing an initiative to bring shared attention to what is changing.CNM is inherently participatory, inviting many people to observe, document, and interpret change collectively. It values lived experience as a central source of insight, embraces uncertainty, and supports adaptive action grounded in what is actually emerging. As a decolonising and grounded approach to MEL, CNM shares power by broadening who defines what matters and what counts as evidence. It centres learning-oriented measurement and collective sensemaking, bringing forward subtle signals, relational shifts, and everyday insights that conventional approaches often overlook.

CMN involves impact logging and tracking against agreed ways of working and learnings, whereas Outcome Harvesting focuses on outcomes and tends to be done as a one-off study. It differs from MSC in that CNM uses shorter, multi-perspective logs across diverse categories and evidence types.This session introduces CNM and invites participants to critically explore its benefits, limitations, and the contexts in which it is most—and least—useful.

Author: Dana Cross (Grosvenor)

Effective evaluation increasingly depends on strong partnerships across communities, commissioners, service providers and evaluators. Yet partnering is often guided by goodwill rather than shared principles, leaving teams vulnerable to power imbalances, ethical drift and unspoken assumptions. This skill building session focuses on principles-based partnering, defined as the deliberate use of a small, shared set of agreed principles to guide roles, behaviours and decision making within evaluation partnerships.

The objective of the session is to build participants’ capability to use partnering principles intentionally and appropriately in real world evaluation contexts, particularly where values, authority and accountabilities differ. Drawing on applied evaluation practice, the session introduces principles based partnering not as a universal solution, but as a supporting mechanism that must be applied judiciously and adapted to context and place.

Participants will develop three core skills:
1.Identifying when partnering principles are likely to be helpful and when they are unlikely to add value or may even create risk.
2.Understanding and applying practical processes for establishing partnering principles, including who should be involved, how principles can be co-created, and how they can be revisited over time.
3. Using principles to navigate tension, power dynamics and ethical dilemmas as they arise during the evaluation lifecycle.

The session is designed as an interactive workshop. Participants will work in small groups to explore short evaluation scenarios, test whether principles-based partnering is appropriate, and practice establishing and applying principles in context. This will be followed by whole group discussion to surface lessons and challenges.
Participants will leave with a clear, adaptable approach for deciding when and how to establish and use partnering principles. The session is suited to foundational and intermediate evaluators seeking hands on skills grounded in real world practice.

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.

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.

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: 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.

Author: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting)

Scaling is often treated as a straightforward ambition: test an intervention in one place, then replicate it in others. In complex systems, and particularly in place-based settings where challenges are systemically entrenched in local history, relationships and power, this logic breaks down. What works is frequently inseparable from where and with whom it works. Scaling across places is not replication. It is a fundamentally different process, and evaluators need tools adequate to that complexity.
This workshop equips evaluators, program designers and commissioners to challenge lock-step and linear models of scaling and apply a complexity-informed, place-sensitive approach in their own practice. Despite the proliferation of place-based initiatives across Australia and the Asia Pacific, most evaluators lack a coherent framework for assessing scalability or monitoring fidelity in contextually sensitive ways.
Three connected arguments run through the session. First, scalability is a question before it is a plan: interventions need to be tested for readiness and direction before any scaling begins. Second, scaling in complex systems requires holding the tension between fidelity and adaptation, not resolving it prematurely. Third, scaling across places demands attention to what is systemically entrenched in each context: the relationships, trust and power dynamics that cannot be lifted and shifted.
These arguments are anchored in three practical tools: a reworked scalability assessment; the Scaling in Place Framework, a new conceptual tool mapping fidelity, adaptation, mechanism and context; and the Scaling Canvas and Fidelity Checker for planning and monitoring.
The session is structured around a short conceptual input, a worked case example, and a facilitated small group activity in which participants apply the tools to a program or context from their own practice. Structured reflection closes the session. It is targeted at intermediate-level evaluators, program designers and commissioners working in place-based, health, community or government settings.

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

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: John Stoney, DSS, Kim Grey, AES President, Ruth Nicholls, Australian Centre for Evaluation, Samantha Mayes, Systems, Planning and Analysis Australia
The idea of keeping going in the face of obstacles is a recurring cultural theme: Nelson Mandela asked us not to judge him by his successes, but by how often he fell down and got back up again. Wise evaluator Eleanor Chelimsky told us that evaluators need to understand our context to win allies and collaborate.

The panel aims to support practitioners to identify, understand and navigate challenges from ethical, good practice and self-care perspectives.

The panel draws on many sources - our favourite proverbs and inspiring leaders - as well as psychology, philosophy and the evaluation literature.

The beneficial effects of identity and belonging will be unpacked, along with how each of us can nurture these powerful drivers of self-care through engaging with evaluation as a profession. This draws on social identity theory and the evidence for the ‘social cure’, which suggests that social groups and a sense of community may be as beneficial as regular exercise - promoting adjustment, coping and well-being.

What do evaluators think supports their resilience? Research into evaluator resilience identifies features of individual and institutional dimensions that support adaptability, including soft skills, relationships, communication skills, flexibility, and professional confidence to refer to codes of ethics, plus organisational mechanisms for discussing rigour and integrity with stakeholders, managers or commissioners, normalising ethical practice.

We’ll also explore the contexts in which we often practice - the barriers, set-backs or cycles, in the dynamic world that evaluation is part of, including the drivers of expansion and contraction in evaluation activity, variation across levels of change (global, national, organisational or people driven), and the dynamic interacting forces that drive cycles to flow at varying or contradictory pace. This can have implications for us as practitioners, requiring adaptability, resilience and self-care, but can also affect the evaluation discipline and profession.

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: Stuart Raetz, Climate Resilient Communities, Primatia Romana Wulandari, Alinea International
This panel will explore and contrast Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) insights from two Australian international development investments undertaking evaluative longitudinal case studies that aim to monitor changes in community and institutional resilience over an extended period: The Australian Water Partnership (AWP) and Climate Resilient Communities (CRC). AWP are retrospectively studying 10 years of water governance investments (2015–2025), while CRC are undertaking evaluative case studies of how communities are adapting to climate change in five countries (Kiribati, Tonga, Fiji, Cambodia and Timor-Leste) in the Indo Pacific (2026 – 2029).

Drawing on emerging insights, evidence and learnings from these two programs the session will explore the enabling conditions that support community and institutional resilience in a changing climate.

The panel will discuss how:

1.Different vantage points reveal different resilience dynamics. AWP’s retrospective longitudinal analysis uncovers patterns of institutional strengthening, governance adaptation, and enabling conditions that only emerge over time, while CRC’s evaluative case studies will illuminate how climate resilience is context specific and driven by locally led adaptation practices.

2.Complementary methodologies strengthen evaluative insight. Both programs use participatory, outcome oriented, and complexity sensitive approaches—providing methodological alignment while generating distinct, mutually reinforcing evidence streams.

3.Integrated evidence supports better climate informed programming. When institutional governance evidence is paired with forward looking community insights, development programs gain stronger foundations for policy engagement, climate integration, and long-term investment planning.

The panel will provide illustrative examples from programming to contrast retrospective and forward-looking approaches to longitudinal case studies.

Audience interaction will be promoted through short provocations and facilitated reflection that will elicit insights from the audience. The panel will support a practical understanding of the challenges and opportunities in monitoring and evaluating resilience and stimulate discussion on how MEL can help programs to navigate complexity in a changing climate.

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: 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.

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: Virgina Thomas, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, Stewart Graham, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, Helen Percy, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao
A culture of impact, empowered by evaluation, encourages accountability and learning, supporting projects to focus on outcomes, demonstrate efficacy and make improvements.  Fostering such an environment promotes success, yet can be challenging to achieve, requiring leadership, communication, adaptability, capacity and capability building, and resources.

Our paper discusses the (co)creation of impact culture, and evaluation systems and tools, in the Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao, a new public research organisation created by merging four of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Crown Research Institutes (CRIs). Establishing an impact culture in this new organisation requires building bridges and blurring boundaries between the organisations and systems that have been merged.  

While the four CRIs all had systems and tools to plan for and evaluate impact, the approaches were unique to each organisation, as were their impact cultures. Since the merger, colleagues have collaborated to bring the previously separate systems and tools together into a new evaluation ecosystem.

In our paper we focus on creating a cohesive impact culture, empowered by evaluation, through i. inter-organisational dialogue, ii. building an enabling environment for evaluation that is adaptable to different needs and functions, and iii. disseminating evaluation tools and resources and promoting evaluative thinking across organisations through collegial networks.

Using our experience as a case study, we will inspire our audience to reconsider the impact and evaluation culture, systems and tools in their own organisations using real time polling (e.g., Mentimeter) to encourage reflection and participation.

We draw on the work of Blundo and Canto (2019) and Ferre (2025) on building an evaluative culture including: creating a system that is adaptable to the different needs and functions of the legacy organisations, fostering dialogue across and beyond the evaluation sector to include fields such as economics and social science, and building capacity, capability and resources for evaluation.

Author: Matthew Armstrong, CGIAR
This presentation provides practical insights on how and when to use economics in evaluation. Economic ideas shape public policy, funding, and program design. Economics promises efficiency, cost effectiveness, value for money and optimisation. Many evaluation theories, for example Stufflebeam’s CIPP model (2007), Scriven’s (2007) consumer orientated model, and Patton’s (2003) utilisation-focused model are biased towards the social concerns of evaluation.

Yet, evaluators are often tasked with incorporating economic concepts, methods and language into evaluations. But how do we make them fit-for-purpose, credible and culturally appropriate? This case study examines when and how economic concepts should be integrated into evaluation.

CGIAR, a global agricultural research network, is introducing tools to apply comparative advantage in portfolio design and evaluation. Comparative advantage suggests organisations should specialise in areas where they are relatively strongest and partner elsewhere to maximise impact. The theory is compelling: comparative advantage offers reduced duplication and deliberate partnerships at lower costs.

However, how do we credibly measure and make evaluative judgements about comparative advantage? This study found considerable variation in how comparative advantage was applied across the organisation and consternation in response to the roll-out that hindered its usefulness. This presentation describes an interdisciplinary negotiation undertaken to develop guidance for rigorous process and performance evaluations of comparative advantage within CGIAR. It involves a structured process to identify synergies and tensions between existing evaluation and economic practice relating to comparative advantage, a step-by-step approach to undertaking evaluations with comparative advantage criteria, and recommendations for developing an organisation-wide approach to comparative advantage to support consistent, high-quality. Furthermore, this case study illustrates a crucial requirement to reflect upon how economics is integrated into evaluation, including when it should be adapted or challenged.

In the interactive component, participants will reflect on how economics shapes evaluation in their organisations.

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.