aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting), Alicia McCoy (First Person Consulting, AU), Tenille Moselen (First Person Consulting, AU)

In the dynamic realm of evaluation methodology, the discourse surrounding the use of validated tools versus the customization of evaluation metrics remains a contentious issue. This session aims to delve into the inherent risks associated with both approaches. This is often compounded when those in positions of power have preferences for the use of validated tools over for-context data collection questions or approaches. The tension this elicits is only increasing in a time when evaluating digital interventions where there is no direct tool to draw upon, leaving evaluators to navigate uncharted territory.

Moreover, there are an ever-increasing range of validated tools available, but little direction for evaluators - particularly emerging and early career evaluators to assist in deciding. This session presents on experiences from a range of digital and in-person projects, and we explore scenarios where there was no 'obvious solution'. This session will be of particular relevance to those undertaking evaluations of digital and novel programs.

Through candid dialogue and shared anecdotes, participants will reflect on their experiences in navigating decisions to adopt, adapt, or reject validated tools, and the learning that resulted. Embracing controversy, this session encourages attendees to challenge conventional wisdom and critically examine the balance between the reliability of validated tools, the importance of fitting data collection to context, and most importantly what 'good' looks like.

Join the conversation as we navigate the complex landscape of evaluation methodology, exploring the tensions between established practices and the pursuit of innovation in evaluation processes.