The year 2020 will turn, without a doubt, into a watershed year for multiple and diverse realities. While we are still in the middle of the pandemic, in contexts characterised by huge incertainties, it is a good moment to reflect on the reality of evaluation in general and participatory evaluation in particular, especially in this long and extended moment that we are living through. This reflection often goes hand in hand with the (re)planning of activities and objectives that have been disrupted and troubled by lockdowns, illness and financial crisis.
Dear colleagues and friends, We hope you are well! We want to share with you the answers to questions that were not answered in our webinar held during the Evaluation Week.
We hope these responses will be useful as we continue to share and learn about this exciting topic and add new participants to this community of practice and learning.
On Tuesday 2 June, we held the EvalParticipativa seminar as part of the 2020 gLocal Evaluation Week. The slogan for the week was “Sharing local and global M&E knowledge”.
The main purpose of the seminar was to publicise and expand the community of practice and learning on participatory evaluation by sharing experiences and reflections on the potential and challenges inherent in this evaluation approach across the region.
Juan Carlos Sanz, from DEval, moderated the seminar with the support of Daniela Miranda from the Poverty Alleviation Foundation/Servicio País and Esteban Tapella from the EvalParticipativa coordinator team. Alejandra Gomez and María Carolina Sandoval from Focelac facilitated the recording and live transmission of the meeting.
The seminar had the pleasure of hosting the following four speakers:
We greet you on behalf of the Evaluation with Participation, team, a joint initiative between Ministry of Planning evaluation units in Costa Rica (MIDEPLAN) and the state of Jalisco in Mexico. As with EvalParticipativa, we have technical and financial support from the FOCELAC project. Yet we feel linked to this project for more than just these reasons: a central hypothesis of our work is that an openness to bringing different interest groups to participate in projects and programs puts to use evaluation methods that better respond to some of the core 2030 Agenda principles.
We are convinced that mutual learning lies not only in what we have in common, but also, perhaps even more so, where we differ. For this reason, we hope you will take advantage of the fantastic opportunity that this forum offers to identify similarities and differences between both initiatives. Thus, in this post we will briefly describe our work and invite you to join us in reflecting on some questions that can guide us. We are already very grateful for your participation.