Prosaic or profound? The adoption of systems ideas by impact evaluation

This article, written by Bob Williams, argues that the systems field may be able to address vulnerabilities of impact evaluation.

The author asserts that in order to do so, it is essential to achieve a balance between the three elements of the systems field: understanding interrelationships; engaging with multiple perspectives; and reflecting on where boundaries are drawn in terms of those interrelationships and perspectives.

Excerpt

"What is the potential contribution of systems and complexity concepts to impact evaluation? What is the potential for it to be game changing and profound and what is the potential for it to be more prosaic and incremental? For individual impact evaluations it is difficult to generalise about the use and value of particular systems approaches, since the contribution will relate to the particular circumstances under which the evaluation is taking place. However, for impact evaluation as an entire endeavour I will argue that it depends on which aspects of the systems field evaluators collectively adopt and adapt.

The systems field is often understood as characterised entirely by a greater understanding of interrelationships. That is only part of the story and if that characterisation dominates I argue that the contribution of systems ideas in impact evaluation as a whole is somewhat prosaic."

Contents

• Impact evaluation today and tomorrow
• A short history of the systems field
• Understanding interrelationships
  • So what for impact evaluation? Interrelationships
• Engaging with perspectives
  • So what for impact evaluation? Perspectives
• Boundaries
• So what – boundaries?