Abstract
Like many journals nowadays Evaluation receives a flow of submission related to AI – some focusing on how evaluators might best use AI others noting the consequences of ‘digital-era governance’ for evaluation itself, (see Ahearn and Parsell, Evaluation, 31.2). Although many evaluators advise caution, the Guest Editors of this Special Issue are both ambitious while also remaining pragmatic. They have collected together articles that address already established themes, like evaluation standards and grappling with new kinds of evidence; and some themes that are just beginning to enter mainstream evaluation discourse, such as how to evaluate systems that themselves rely on AI.
At what may well prove to be a critical inflection point in the development of evaluation scholarship and practice – driven both by geopolitical shifts in power and values as well as Kondratieff-like ‘long waves’ driven largely by AI – it is easy to lose focus on some of the basics of evaluation. This is something that the Guest Editors avoid. Themes such as ethical responsibilities of evaluators, stakeholder engagement and methodological innovation remain integral to this Special Issue.
We expect to continue to welcome articles that build on and diversify AI-related evaluation agendas – and more are in the pipeline. However, we also want to maintain investment in the foundational building blocks of contemporary evaluative thinking: in the institutionalisation of evaluation; in Realist Evaluation and other ‘theory-based’ approaches; countering climate change and bio-diversity crises; and the limits and possibilities for causal inference in the face of complexity. We are still at an early stage integrating AI challenges into these established evaluation building blocks.
Sustaining existing networks – via evaluation gatherings, colloquia and conferences – as well as building new networks is undoubtedly facing new challenges perhaps more so in North America than in Europe (so far) driven by resource cutbacks and reduced interest in ‘evidence’ within policy circles. Innovative responses are needed. And this is happening, sometimes in the form of ‘hybrid’ virtual and ‘in-person’ events that have become so prevalent post the Covid-19 pandemic; and sometimes by the emergence of new evaluation ‘champions’ in established professional communities such as in healthcare managers and planners as well as among regulators and Inspectorates.
One good example of this is the first North American-based International Conference for Realist Research, Evaluation and Synthesis which in 2025 takes place in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, this September. This is a hybrid event encouraging both virtual and in-person attendance, bringing together both generic evaluation scholars together with specialists from healthcare and social care, sectors that for both content and context reasons, have been especially receptive to Realist Evaluation thinking. (See https://web.cvent.com/event/acb1c817-ecdd-4442-816f-33eeeb825879/summary.)
Nothing in the above should take attention away from this Special Issue for which much credit and thanks are due to the Guest Editors – Oto Potluka, Sven Harten, Alexander Kocks and Jaroslav Dvorak – for drawing together so many timely new ideas from an international evaluation community embracing Germany, Australia, Morrocco, Czechia, Finland, the United Kingdom and Lithuania.