background preloader

GIZ Evaluation Conference 2011: Systemic Approaches in Evaluatio

Facebook Twitter

Session C: Perspectives. Session B: Method Market. Session A: Case Studies. Panel Discussion 2. From left to right: In the conclusions, the four panelists were asked about the lessons learned during the conference. The following aspects were discussed and summarized. Systemic approaches are particularly useful for learning and improvement There was an agreement that systemic approaches can encourage learning and innovation, and enhance adaptive management during program implementation. As they are particularly helpful for looking into the "why" questions, systemic approaches in evaluation support the improvement of development interventions. The panelists did not agree on the usefulness of applying systems thinking when it comes to accountability: While Ruerd Rubens raised doubts, Michael Zintl said that systemic tools can help to "measure results" to a certain degree because systems thinking broadens our view (e.g. to include unintended results).

Our partners need to be involved in the debate It is crucial to involve our partners more in these methodological debates. Panel Discussion 1. From left to right: On the panel, different perspectives were represented. There is no such thing as the systemic evaluation Reinhard Stockmann stressed that it needed to be clarified what is understood by systemic approaches in evaluation. There was an agreement among the panelists that there is no such thing as the systemic evaluation. Instead, one should talk about applying systems ideas in evaluations. Systemic approaches and "traditional" evaluation approaches: Antithetic or complementary? The five panelists discussed common aspects of and differences between "traditional" and rigorous evaluation approaches on the one hand and systemic approaches on the other.

Reinhard Stockmann pointed out, however, that there are some fundamental epistemological differences between the constructivist systems thinking and evaluation approaches that are based on neo-positivist/critical rationalist assumptions. Process vs. impact orientation; learning vs. accountability. 5_Keynote_Hummelbrunner. Home.