what's the difference between participatory and community-owned evaluation?

One of my favorite parts of my early jobs as an evaluator and researcher was training community data collectors. I’ve always loved training and facilitating, and I was fortunate to work with really talented (and hilarious) people. I didn’t fully internalize what it meant at the time, but looking back, training data collectors was my introduction to participatory research. 

A few years later, I would go on to serve as the Community Engagement Focal Point on a few public health program evaluations, building on early lessons learned in training community data collectors and pushing boundaries wherever possible. In passing, a colleague once asked, “Where do you even get these ideas?” and I replied honestly: “It’s just what makes sense to me.”

breaking the participatory glass ceiling

The whole of my career, a participatory approach was the gold standard in community-engaged research and evaluation. It pushed back on the extractive, top-down model where outside experts descended on communities, collected data, and left with findings that those affected by the work would never see or use. With that as a frame of reference, participatory approaches were a welcomed, necessary, and substantial improvement.

But participation has a glass ceiling.

When we say an evaluation was participatory, it typically means that community members were involved. Perhaps they supported data collection and reviewed findings. In some cases, their lived experiences may have even led to small modifications in pre-determined questions. In other words, their voices were heard. 

However, someone can fully participate in an evaluation and still have no meaningful say in what questions the evaluation answers, how the data are collected and interpreted, what the findings are allowed to say, or what happens with the new knowledge once the evaluation ends. That’s because having one’s voice heard is not equivalent to having power.

Ownership is the next landmark shift. Ownership means the Affected Community (the people directly impacted by a program, whether they actively participated or not) holds real decision-making authority at key moments throughout the evaluation. Not as advisors, and not providing input that gets “considered.” True decision-making power.

what ownership makes possible

When communities own an evaluation, their own questions get answered, not just the questions funders want answered or that organization and evaluators find methodologically interesting. When communities own an evaluation, findings aren’t shelved because they're uncomfortable for an organization. When communities own an evaluation, the knowledge generated belongs to them. They can carry it forward, act on it, and pass it down, long after programs end or organizations close. 

This is why we say our approach focuses on deepening collective knowledge, because it’s about moving past “evaluations that don’t extract,” and moving toward evaluations and evaluation outputs that take their rightful place in the communal archive.

Getting there requires more than good intentions or inclusive facilitation. It requires explicit agreements about power before an evaluation ever begins.

If you're planning an evaluation and want to explore what genuine ownership would look like in your context, we'd love to talk.