Evaluation myths and misconceptions

Evaluation can sometimes seem intimidating due to common misconceptions about its complexity, purpose, and cost.

In this section, we’ll debunk some of the two most persistent myths about evaluation, helping you better understand what evaluation really involves. By exploring these myths, you’ll gain a clearer picture of how evaluations can be tailored to fit different contexts and how accountability and learning can work hand in hand.

Myth 1: Evaluations are always complex, time-consuming, and costly

While some evaluations can be complex, lengthy, and expensive, this is not a universal rule. The complexity, duration, and cost of an evaluation depend on its specific scope and context. There are many evaluation methods available, and some can be done in a quicker and cheaper way. 

Myth 2: Evaluation is only about accountability

Accountability is an important reason for conducting evaluations, but it is not the only purpose. Evaluators can struggle to balance accountability and learning. However, these purposes can coexist, even if they seem at odds.

Accountability and learning are interdependent. You cannot be accountable if you do not learn, and you need to assess your performance to learn. The supposed conflict between learning and accountability is baseless. They complement each other. Understanding effectiveness necessitates both.

Resources

  • Exploding the myth of incompatibility between accountability and learning

    This chapter from Capacity Development in Practice examines the conflict in the field of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) between the need for ‘accountability’ and the desire to ensure ‘learning’.

  • Utilising and learning from evaluations (PDF)

    This 4-page evaluation resource from USAID guides program and evaluation managers to ensure that evaluations inform decision-making, contribute to learning and are used to improve processes.

  • Identifying the intended user(s) and use(s) of an evaluation

    This guideline from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) highlights the importance of identifying the primary intended user(s) and the intended use(s) of an evaluation.

  • Identify primary intended users
    Clarify who will actually use the evaluation—not in vague, general terms (e.g. "decision makers") but in terms of specific identifiable people (e.g. the manager and staff of the programme; the steering committee; funders deciding whether to fund this programme or similar programmes in the future).

Back to top