S04_ Evaluating democracy, governance, and recovery support when the stakes are high: methods, accountability and learning in complex, fragile, politicized and conflict-affected contexts
S06_ Evaluation for Transformative Democratic Futures: Addressing the polycrisis through systemic learning, power shifts and regeneration
S04_ Evaluating democracy, governance, and recovery support when the stakes are high: methods, accountability and learning in complex, fragile, politicized and conflict-affected contexts
S06_ Evaluation for Transformative Democratic Futures: Addressing the polycrisis through systemic learning, power shifts and regeneration
S05_ Evaluating Philanthropy in Context: Relational Dynamics, Accountability, and Institutional Environments
Jaroslav Dvorak, Tomasz Kupiec
Rationale and Objectives
Philanthropy has become a central actor in addressing complex social challenges, yet its evaluation remains deeply contested. This strand aligns with the overall conference theme by critically examining how evaluation practices in philanthropy are shaped by relational dynamics and institutional environments, and how they, in turn, influence democratic accountability, learning, and social change. By focusing on the meso-level (relationships among donors, communities, fundraisers, and evaluators) and the macro-level (institutional pressures, norms, and power structures), the strand speaks directly to broader debates on governance, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making in complex systems.
Objectives
The primary objective of this strand is to advance theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented understanding of how philanthropic evaluation can better account for relational processes, power asymmetries, and institutional constraints. Building on recent scholarship, including Benjamin et al. (2023), the strand aims to move beyond narrow, project-based evaluation logics and explore evaluation as a socially embedded, contested, and political practice.
Key issues and questions to be explored
The strand will explore, among others, the following interrelated questions:
• What should be evaluated in philanthropy: projects, organizations, networks, communities, or systems?
• For what purposes are philanthropic evaluations conducted (control, compliance, learning, empowerment), and how do these purposes shape evaluation design and use?
• How do power relations influence the choice of evaluation criteria and definitions of success? Anticipated contributions The strand aims to contribute to:
• Theory, by advancing relational and institutional perspectives on evaluation in philanthropy;
• Practice, by offering insights into more inclusive, learning-oriented, and context-sensitive evaluation approaches;
• Policy dialogue, by critically reflecting on accountability regimes, funding structures, and evaluation governance in the philanthropic and voluntary sectors.
Objectives
The primary objective of this strand is to advance theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented understanding of how philanthropic evaluation can better account for relational processes, power asymmetries, and institutional constraints. Building on recent scholarship, including Benjamin et al. (2023), the strand aims to move beyond narrow, project-based evaluation logics and explore evaluation as a socially embedded, contested, and political practice.
Key issues and questions to be explored
The strand will explore, among others, the following interrelated questions:
• What should be evaluated in philanthropy: projects, organizations, networks, communities, or systems?
• For what purposes are philanthropic evaluations conducted (control, compliance, learning, empowerment), and how do these purposes shape evaluation design and use?
• How do power relations influence the choice of evaluation criteria and definitions of success? Anticipated contributions The strand aims to contribute to:
• Theory, by advancing relational and institutional perspectives on evaluation in philanthropy;
• Practice, by offering insights into more inclusive, learning-oriented, and context-sensitive evaluation approaches;
• Policy dialogue, by critically reflecting on accountability regimes, funding structures, and evaluation governance in the philanthropic and voluntary sectors.