Monthly Corner
Laura Hughston - Blog
Arnoux Mouafo Nop & Dimitri Tsona Zapzi - Article
Prof. Wangari Mwai and Prof. Catherine Ndungo - BOOK
- Understanding Gender and Identity Through The Gender Dictionary
Publisher: Bleeding Ink Scribes
RAI SENGUPTA - gender-transformative evaluation tools
This synthesis draws on evidence from 17 humanitarian evaluations across diverse crisis settings. It identifies key feminist evaluation innovations across four domains - design, methods, analysis, and ethics - illustrating how feminist principles can be embedded throughout the evaluation process. It also surfaces broader shifts required at policy, institutional, and practice levels to realise the transformative potential of feminist approaches in humanitarian contexts.
The toolkit translates these insights into applied guidance for evaluators and organisations. It provides step-by-step support across the full evaluation cycle, including planning, design, methods, analysis, ethics, and dissemination. Drawing on global feminist evaluation practice, humanitarian guidance, and gender evaluation standards, it includes adaptable tools, participatory and arts-based methods, guiding questions, and templates for field application.
Ritu Dewan & Swat Raju - Article
-
In Promises & Reality 2026 Citizen’s Review of Year 2 of the NDA-III Government. Coordinated by Wada Na Todo Abhiyan, June 20, 2026. pp 94-100.
UTTHAN - Research Report
Traversing the path with women farmers in their fields and in our reflections/writings, a stark observation was the sheer lack of localized and regional vocabulary and terminology to adequately capture and communicate the understanding of climate change and mitigation strategies, informed by the unique experiences and needs of small and marginal women farmers. This is what propelled our research - to examine how women farmers perceive, express, experience, and respond to climate variability across
Our Research Report centres the lived experiences, generational knowledge, and resilience strategies of small and marginal women farmers from the coastal (Bhavnagar) and hilly (Dahod & Panchmahal) regions i.e two contrasting agro-climatic zones of Gujarat. Through their voices, the study reveals exactly how climate change intersects with gender, land rights, labour burdens, and food security.
Events
Vacancies
About the job
At Includovate, we are expanding our Pacific Research & Evaluation Talent Pool and inviting researchers, evaluators, consultants, and development practitioners to join a growing network of professionals committed to creating meaningful social impact.
As a feminist research incubator and certified social enterprise, Includovate works with partners including UNICEF, UNFPA, the ILO, governments, and development organisations across 23+ countries. Our work spans gender equality, social inclusion, health, disability, youth, climate, WASH, market systems, and other development priorities.
We are particularly keen to connect with experts from:
📍 Papua New Guinea
📍 Solomon Islands
📍 Vanuatu
📍 Timor-Leste
📍 Fiji
📍 Samoa
📍 Tonga
📍 Indonesia
📍 Australia
and across the wider Pacific region.
We welcome expertise in:
✓ Research, Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning
✓ Gender Equality & Social Inclusion
✓ Health & SRHR
✓ Disability Inclusion
✓ Youth Development
✓ Climate & Environment
✓ WASH
✓ Market Systems Development
✓ Governance & Community Development
Whether your expertise lies in data collection, research, evaluation, technical advisory, facilitation, or team leadership, we would love to hear from you.
By joining our Talent Pool, you become part of a trusted network of professionals who may be considered for future research, evaluation, advisory, and consulting opportunities across the Pacific region and beyond.
🔗 Register here: https://lnkd.in/eyF66S7H
Theory of Change
Hi everyone. We'd welcome your view point and experience of working with a 'Theory of Change'.
They have been broadly criticized for being too cause-effect for systemic evaluation. But is it possible to change this view by asking critical questions about its nature? Can we ask questions about the TOC's determination? What assumptions underlye it? Does it conceal power dynamics that would be opened up if we were to probe more deeply at the TOCs margins? Is there ever a circumstance where we can deviate from the TOC to pursue ideas and information and still call it a TOC? In short - can we make TOCs systemic?
What thoughts come to your mind?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Colvin on
-
Thanks Ann, yes, I think that we can develop more systemic ToCs. We sought to do this with the ACCRA evaluation I've just posted with a linked message to you. What helped us in this was that Oxfam and the other ACCRA partners were committed to a gender transformative programme that focused on governance systems. Furthermore, as we were undertaking an impact evaluation drawing on contribution analysis, the focus of our evaluation was on a wider change system rather than simply on the programme itself. In the evaluation process, we also had to work with the power dynamics between the ACCRA programme funders in the UK and the ACCRA programme delivery in Ethiopia (also Uganda and Mozambique) which was interesting. Especially we found different ToCs in the UK and among the African partners. So we sought to be transparent about this, and to work with the tensions involved. best wishes, John
-
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Stephens on
-
Hi John
This sounds like an interesting and gritty evaluation John. It would be interesting to see how the boundary analysis approach we've described in the ISE4GEMs Guidance would have worked in your planning phases - to really articulate the inclusion/exclusions of the methods, field sites, stakeholders, etc.
I wonder too what analysis methods you used to pull this all together. Sounds like attention to power and positionality most likely played an important role in the programme/s. What to do when we have incongruent TOCs? I guess a systemic TOC calls for multiple interpretations of why and how change happens - recognising that this is a dynamic process. Just because it is on paper at a Head Office in London does not make it fixed and real.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me John,
Anne
-
-
Permalink Reply by Margerit Roger on
-
Greetings from the middle of Canada,
I work a lot with Theory of Change and have found it incredibly useful in framing a range of questions for strategic planning, program planning, stakeholder analysis, outcome clarification, and evaluation. I start most of my work with a stakeholder mapping on a big piece of paper with coloured markers and that allows me to have the "power" discussions. I can then use those to identify evaluation narratives, as different stakeholders are looking for different kinds of outcomes and when resources are tight, organizations need to focus on data that will provide the best strategic feedback.
As a result of all the resulting discussions, which can go as deep as needed for any given circumstance, I think T of C definitely raises awareness of the systems underlying everything. It seems to me that the linear "manufacturing/assembly line" mindset that has predominated our discourse is finally giving way to a more ecologically-influenced, network-like mindset of interrelationships and T of C reflects that.
Mind you, and tool is just a tool. Use it in the way that makes the most sense to your context. Be aware of the consequences of modifying, for sure, but modify as you need to. just be transparent about where you've modified and keep an eye on consequences. For example, sometimes I focus on the evaluation questions (what is the broader impact?) without having spent as much as time on needs assessment (what's the problem you're trying to solve?), so I need to remember to probe a little more about other aspects of the organization's work or processes.
-
© 2026 Created by Rituu B Nanda.
Powered by
