What's needed more - Tools, Methodologies or Training?

[Anne Stephens]

[John Colvin]

Hello Ann, at Emerald Network we have been experimenting with systemic evaluations for a few years now. Each evaluation is of course different, as it is always contextually design, but with each evaluation we do we experiment with new methods and new methodological combinations.To help us set more inclusive boundaries for the definition of the 'system of interest' which become the focus of our evaluations, we draw on critical systems thinking. We are finding Martin Reynolds work really useful here. I like the way you are dealing with issues of power and inclusion by drawing boundaries in this subgroup to embrace gender, marginalized voices and ecologies. In a recent evaluation for the ACCRA programme in Ethiopia we also drew on learning history as a methodology for giving voice to marginalized voices in the evaluation. I've attached the evaluation report here. best wishes - John

[Anne Stephens]

Thanks again John for posting a lot of thoughtful comments. I've skimmed through your report and find it most interesting. I will share this with Ellen who worked in Ethiopia last year. Martin Reynolds has been very influential in our work too. Particularly his development of systemic triangulation which I adapted and used to structure our Chapter 7 which is the analysis and interpretation of findings section of the Guide. I really want to use this in my applied work because I think it is possibly under-theorised in that, I think there's more value to be squeezed out of the process described than I am presently able to articulate from the work I've done with it. Hence why trial and testing is so helpful. I have talked to Martin about revisiting it with him down the track - two minds are better than one as they say. 

Anyway, it has been good to engage with you here, and thanks again

Anne