The One-Way Street of Knowledge Production and Sharing in the Evaluation Field*

May 11, 2020

*Translation of the blog post is also available in French here as done by the wonderful colleague, Sana Ben Salem.

A torrent of evaluation webinars, online courses, and virtual community meetings has recently emerged after the COVID-19 lockdowns. Such media are universally available to all evaluators should they have access to a computer with an internet connection, and, of course, space and time to watch and engage. Some of the most distinguished evaluators and leading evaluation scholars deliver webinars and online courses regularly, which are available for free in most cases. The availability of these educational resources, delivered by such scholars, is a positive development and step forward in the democratization of knowledge in the evaluation field. Despite this positive and seemingly inclusive approach, a less favorable side of these activities is that a rather exclusive category of evaluators often deliver them. 

Online knowledge-sharing opportunities offered by evaluation associations and other organizations in the Global South tend to have speakers from both the Global South and Global North (although with a discernible overrepresentation of the latter). On the other hand, similar opportunities offered by evaluation associations and organizations in the Global North are almost exclusively dominated by speakers from the Global North –in most cases, white men. When occasionally speakers are: women; of a minority background; or come from another country than where the event is held, they are predominantly from the Global North. When speakers are from the Global South, they are often of European descent. It is as rare as hen’s teeth to have a speaker who is a person of color from the Global South at an online event organized by evaluation associations or other organizations in the Global North.  

This trend is not new, nor is it uncommon in the evaluation field, especially in academic knowledge production and sharing. One can hardly find an evaluation book – let alone a widely-read one – written by an evaluator from the Global South. Evaluation journals are not doing any better. A simple glance at the list of authors in most evaluation journals (from the Global North and Global South alike) manifests similar results: Authors from the Global North almost entirely dominate evaluation journals. Evaluators from the Global North also seem to be overrepresented in the editorial boards of the few evaluation journals to be found in the Global South. And, this trend is perhaps even more evident in keynote speeches during major evaluation conferences (whether organized in the Global North or Global South). One can bet every time that the next keynote speaker in any major evaluation conference will be from the Global North. 

I recognize that this problem is both deeply rooted and complex. It could be argued that the limited contribution of evaluators from the Global South is to blame. But, while it is true that this academic contribution is insufficient at the moment – and that evaluators in the Global South have been mostly consumers rather than producers of evaluation knowledge – such contribution is undoubtedly significantly engendered from the lack of opportunity provided to them, not their talent, willingness to contribute to scientific advancement or substantial field experience.   

This one-way street of evaluation knowledge production and sharing is dangerous and unsustainable but indicates a bigger problem. It is, in my view, a glaring example of covert racism. No one field – including evaluation – can claim complete emancipation from racism and prejudice, especially subconscious discrimination and unconscious bias. What is reassuring in evaluation is that many of the same evaluators and evaluation scholars who have the access and privilege are the fiercest advocates of inclusion and openness and act upon their beliefs. I know it because I experienced inclusion and support from several evaluation scholars and leaders. But I must point out that a) while I personally benefited from such support, many others did not. Perhaps this is because – in most cases – such support was a result of an individual initiative of those leaders. And b) it is crucial that the community as a whole (including its institutions and structures) be more inclusive, not only its visionary leaders. 

The global evaluation community – north and south – has an ethical responsibility (and vested interest) to be more mindful of its inclusiveness and openness. The evaluation field should be among the leading fields in combating these convictions and practices. It is time for the field to systematically embrace and nourish views, thoughts, and experiences that have long been neglected. These contributions have the potential to transform our field and its dynamics and achievements. I believe that one of the key rationales behind the success of EvalYouth and its parent network, EvalPartners, is its constant ability to transcend this global south and north divide and offer a platform for evaluators with a passion for sharing their input with the broader community to grow and flourish. 

The recent availability of online knowledge-sharing opportunities, coupled with the cancellation or suspension of most face-to-face evaluation conferences and events, presents a brief but indispensable opportunity. While conferences and journals have not been diverse as they should, online learning opportunities have the potential to provide a platform for evaluators who did not have it before. In our increasingly diverse and multicultural society (and evaluation community), it is more imperative than ever for evaluators and evaluation associations to reflect this diversity through such educational platforms before it is too late.