- Context Matters: Evaluation in the 21st Century
Reasoning is the only ability that makes it possible for humans to rule the earth and to ruin it. All other alleged distinction between us and other life forms on the planet turn out to be illusory. (Scriven, 1976, p. 2)
Highlights
- Context matters: It plays a crucial role in shaping the process and outcomes of evaluations, and the impacts of interventions. However, it is often overlooked in evaluations.
- Understanding contextual dynamics enhances evaluators’ effectiveness: By considering the context, evaluators can be more strategic and impactful in their projects.
- Local cultural context and history are important as well: Showing respect for local peoples and cultures, and supporting self-determination and empowerment, should be central to all evaluation projects.
- Context provides opportunities to reduce risks: A well-understood context and of the planetary health determinants helps minimize potential negative outcomes and enhances positive impacts on both natural and human environments.
- Context is volatile: Evaluators need to stay aware of the changing contextual dimensions to adapt their projects accordingly.
Introduction
Evaluation has always been a dynamic field that changes according to the big questions and challenges of the time. The current context calls for different evaluation practices that will directly address what matters the most in the 21st century.
Being an evaluator in the 21st century requires practicing evaluation differently from mainstream approaches that focus on interventions and treat the context secondarily. Because of the urgent need to restore or implement environmental, social, cultural, and political conditions that allow all species, including humans, to thrive, evaluators are now challenged to become moral agents in their practice. As this work involves a meaningful societal transformation, the current balance of power will inevitably be affected; some powerful people have a lot to lose and are leading a fierce resistance.
Therefore, for evaluators to have a positive influence they need to understand the socio-political context they are working within and the main determinants of planetary health. The following sections of this Chapter present the context’s characteristics and describe the dimensions of planetary health that matter the most for creating and sustaining the conditions for all species and human beings to thrive.
Environmental and Social Depletion
We are living in a time when many species’ survival and health, including ours, are threatened by numerous connected, simultaneous crises. We are observing the extinction of living species. One million animal species are threatened with extinction, and simultaneously populations of other species—mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians—have decreased (World Wild Fund for Nature, 2022). As indicated in the report by World Wild Fund for Nature (2022), monitored wildlife populations have decreased an average of 69% since 1970, the equivalent of 27 football fields of forest is disappearing every minute. At the same time, the global climate is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The year 2024 started with heartbreaking news about climate warming: we have reached and are surpassing the original 2030 Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C above pre-industrial level (Hansen et al., 2023; McCulloch et al., 2024). Every year extreme climate events happen with increased frequency and intensity in different regions of the world: heavy rain and floodings, heatwaves, droughts, fires, cyclones, etc. These disruptions put ecosystems under increased pressure and increase risks for biodiversity, and human beings’ safety and well-being (IPCC, 2018). Collectively we are not doing enough or acting quickly enough to maintain a safe environment for all species.
Simultaneously, pollution is currently the top cause of premature human mortality. Pollution is impacting many lands, waters, and living species. Each year, nine million premature deaths are attributable to pollution, over 90% of which occur in low to middle-income countries (Fuller et al., 2022).
Over the past two decades, deaths caused by the modern forms of pollution (eg, ambient air pollution and toxic chemical pollution) have increased by 66%, driven by industrialisation, uncontrolled urbanisation, population growth, fossil fuel combustion, and an absence of adequate national or international chemical policy. (Fuller et al., 2022, p. e535)
Loss of biodiversity, climate change, and pollution are major environmental challenges we need to address. It is not an option; it is a question of survival.
Not everyone faces the same risks or is exposed to risks in the same way. Climate change is increasing risks to food access, security, and water supply, among other concerns (IPCC, 2022). These new pressures on local conditions have consequences for population health and displacement (IPCC, 2022). People most at risk are also those with less capacity to protect themselves; further, people living off of the land and oceans, as farmers, fishers, Indigenous people in coastal and remote communities, are the most threatened (Baier & Brown, 2019).
Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change […] Regions and people with considerable development constraints have high vulnerability to climatic hazards (high confidence). Global hotspots of high human vulnerability are found particularly in West-, Central- and East Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, Small Island Developing States and the Arctic (high confidence). Vulnerability is higher in locations with poverty, governance challenges and limited access to basic services and resources, violent conflict and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods (e.g., smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fishing communities) (high confidence). Between 2010–2020, human mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability (high confidence). Vulnerability at different spatial levels is exacerbated by inequity and marginalization linked to gender, ethnicity, low income or combinations thereof (high confidence), especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high confidence). Present development challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high confidence). (IPCC, 2022, p. 12)
These disproportionate risks, locally and globally, increase social and health inequities, which increase the burden on already more vulnerable communities (Brousselle & McDavid, 2020). Paradoxically, the richest 10% of the world’s population, based on consumption, have been responsible for about half of the cumulative carbon emissions between 1990 and 2015, while the poorest 50% have been responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions (Gore et al., 2020). The communities at greatest risk are those that have contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2022). These environmental injustices are also entrenched in a long-standing system of exploitation of human and natural resources, sadly illustrated—among other forms of current economic control and domination—by the colonization system established by European countries (Hickel, 2017; Nesmith et al., 2021; van den Berg et al., 2022; Whyte, 2019).
Human and environmental crises are embedded and interrelated, and they can’t be considered separately. Furthermore, time is an issue. The unwillingness to tackle these existential crises creates greater risks over time – dangers of crossing critical thresholds that trigger irreversible consequences.
Evaluators need to consider this context from two related perspectives: programmatic and political. Programmatically, if we want to contribute to stopping social and environmental degradation and contribute to regenerating our systems, we need to understand what risks exist so we can reduce them as much as we can. Understanding risks entails adopting a planetary health approach in everything we do. One where we try to implement positive practices of healing and regeneration (Wahl, 2016) to restore land, air, and water and repair social relationships to create thriving environments. Politically, evaluators need to understand the contextual dynamics of their practice, which include cultural frames; patterns of belief and representations, institutions and organizations; and governance structures and processes. Embedded in the political context are power dynamics that will influence the entire evaluation process. To be relevant, evaluation needs to be conducted in a culturally responsive manner that acknowledges and respects systems of beliefs. Fundamentally, it also needs to give voice to scientific evidence in a polarized world with increasing distrust (Brousselle, 2024).
Reducing Risks
Risk exists when there is a conjunction of three elements: hazard, exposure to this hazard, and vulnerability (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Understanding Risk
Source: Brousselle, A., Kennedy, C., & Brunet-Jailly, E. (2020). More crises to come: managing risk and fostering resilience with COVID-19 pandemic recovery. Canadian Public Administration/ Administration Publique du Canada, 63(3), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12388
To reduce risks, one can target any of these three elements. For example, the appearance of COVID-19 created a new hazard. However, to experience the risk associated with infection, one needed to be exposed to the virus and to have some vulnerability to the infection. Vaccines reduced vulnerability, while masks reduced the exposure to the virus.
In the case of climate change, mitigation efforts aim to reduce hazards. For example, to lessen risks related to climate change, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation measures, on the other hand, aim to reduce exposure. Reducing risks attributable to climate change can include protecting communities from fires, drought, and flooding. To reduce vulnerability, one needs to increase resilience which can be community resilience and population resilience. Community resilience is about sustaining the needs of communities during emergencies and recognizing the importance of key sectors—like food, water, energy, and production capacity—that we depend on more heavily in crisis situations (Brousselle et al., 2020). Building population resilience requires addressing inequalities to protect health at the population level (Brousselle et al., 2020).
Studies on resilience in countries experiencing economic crises have observed better population health outcomes when governments invested in social support rather than cutting budgets as recommended by international financial organizations (Karanikolos et al., 2013; Stuckler & Basu, 2013; Stuckler et al., 2009). Foundational writings in public health show that equity and social support matter for health. Even if causes of death change over time, a gradient of mortality persists, explained mainly by social status and inequities (Evans, 1994; Black et al., 1980). Policies that reduce social inequities will have a positive impact on population health. Greve’s work on happiness shows that countries with fewer social disparities also demonstrate greater happiness scores (Greve, 2012). Altogether, these writings show that, when basic needs are met, what matters most to increase happiness, health, and resilience is not the level of wealth, but welfare policies that reduce inequities. (as cited in Brousselle & McDavid, 2020, p. 195)
Attempts at increasing the resilience of the population necessarily involve reinvesting in measures that reduce social inequalities, which can be done through investments in public health and healthcare, education, early childhood development, income support and social protection, better housing and living environments, policies that foster social and human capital, and improved job and workplace conditions (Brousselle & McDavid, 2021; World Health Organization, 2019).
Actions at the levels of mitigation, adaptation, and resilience can be implemented separately or in combination. In a world where risk is a dynamic phenomenon, a complementary consideration of these three dimensions increases the likelihood of reducing harmful effects and amplifying beneficial ones.
Local Cultural Contexts
Many countries have a history of colonization. Consequences of harm are experienced over several generations. The Canadian Commission on Truth and Reconciliation offers a testimony of harms and genocidal actions that happened in Canada against Indigenous people (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Living in British Columbia, I’ve listened to stories of dispossession, of abuse and harm, stories that are not from distant history, but from the lived experiences of those who are still here to tell them. Elders share painful memories of entire villages emptied of children. Others tell stories of being forbidden to speak their language at school and of returning home as teenagers and not knowing their own relatives. Many children never returned, lost to illness, neglect, or abuse. Consequences of harm are experienced over several generations. Listening is taking part in a movement acknowledging Truth.
Legal frameworks are changing, with, for example, the ratification by 147 countries of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2007). Some changes are also taking place in colonized places, with UNDRIP adopted as law in British Columbia, and the recognition of the inherent right of self-government and self-determination expressed by the introduction of Section 35(1) of the Constitution Acts, 1982 (Government of Canada, 2024; McNeil, n.d.).
Through self-determination, we see a resurgence of Indigenous cultures, with initiatives in education, language revitalization, land and water management, health, data and knowledge ownership, and the affirmation of Indigenous rights. While the impacts of colonization are still evident, many positive and hopeful stories are unfolding.
When evaluations take place on ancestral Indigenous lands, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential, and cultural protocols should be understood and respected. Various processes can be put in place, and the field of evaluation offers valuable guidance (Bowman, 2019; Bowman & Bremner, 2024; Bremner et al., 2020; Brousselle et al., 2024a; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021; Chouinard & Cram, 2020; Cram, 2018a, 2018b; Rowe, 2022). Respecting Indigenous rights and cultures is essential for decolonizing evaluation. Particular attention should be paid to local traditions and cultures. For example in the podcast Indigenous Insights, An Garagiola, reflecting on her experience working with Indigenous communities in Minnesota (USA), emphasizes the importance of establishing trust (Rowe, 2024b). She also stresses that evaluators should support communities’ self-determination and empowerment by allowing communities to guide the direction of the work, ensuring it serves their objectives (Rowe, 2024b). Communities should also decide how they wish to share their stories (Rowe, 2024b). Heather Burke and Cheyenne Williams, interviewed in another Indigenous Insights podcast, highlight the importance of building long-lasting relationships with Indigenous people and being accountable for these relationships (Rowe, 2024a). They note the necessity of being humble, open, and balancing power dynamics (Rowe, 2024a). Additionally, they emphasize the importance of respecting local protocols and waiting to be invited (Rowe, 2024a). These testimonies underscore the fact that ‘helicopter’ evaluations and evaluators are not welcome, as they perpetuate the history of colonization. Being mindful of cultural differences, respecting local cultures, and adhering to local protocols should be principles applied to all evaluations, in all countries.
Mainstream evaluation approaches are still largely shaped by a few dominant cultures, whereas embracing diverse values and a range of voices offering alternatives to the prevailing systems could open new pathways for creating healthy, sustainable, and equitable societies.
Exhibit 1: Guiding principles from the Wolastoq Declaration on Indigenous Evaluation
Honour Indigenous Rights: We affirm the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples to govern and direct their own evaluation processes. These rights are rooted in self-determination and sovereignty and must be respected by all evaluation frameworks and practices.
Protect Knowledge Sovereignty: Indigenous Evaluation must ensure the security and protection of Indigenous knowledge and data. This includes safeguarding the cultural integrity and intellectual property of Indigenous Peoples throughout the evaluation process.
Mobilise Traditional Paradigms: We commit to a continuous journey of learning and unlearning. This involves embracing Indigenous perspectives, methodologies, and protocols in evaluation practices, and challenging colonial paradigms that do not align with Indigenous values.
Source: EvalIndigenous (2024). Wolastoq Declaration on Indigenous Evaluation. https://www.evalindigenous.net/wolastoq-declaration.html
Evaluation Takes Place in a Political Context
The political aspects of evaluation have been the subject of significant debate in the evaluation field. Carol Weiss offers a comprehensive reflection on the many political facets of evaluation projects.
Evaluation is a rational enterprise. It examines the effects of policies and programs on their targets—whether individuals, groups, institutions, or communities—in terms of the goals they are meant to achieve. By objective and systematic methods, evaluation research assesses the extent to which goals are realized and looks at the factors that are associated with successful or unsuccessful outcomes. The assumption is that by providing “the facts,” evaluation assists decision-makers to make wise choices among future courses of action. Careful and unbiased data on the consequences of programs should improve decision-making.
But evaluation is a rational enterprise that takes place in a political context. Political considerations intrude in three major ways, and the evaluator who fails to recognize their presence is in for a series of shocks and frustrations:
First, the policies and programs with which evaluation deals are the creatures of political decisions. They were proposed, defined, debated, enacted, and funded through political processes, and in implementation they remain subject to pressures—both supportive and hostile—that arise out of the play of politics.
Second, because evaluation is undertaken in order to feed into decision-making, its reports enter the political arena. There evaluative evidence of program outcomes has to compete for attention with other factors that carry weight in the political process.
Third, and perhaps least recognized, evaluation itself has a political stance. By its very nature, it makes implicit political statements about such issues as the problematic nature of some programs and the unchallengeability of others, the legitimacy of program goals and program strategies, the utility of strategies of incremental reform, and even the appropriate role of the social scientists in policy and program formation.
Knowing that political constraints and resistances exist is not a reason for abandoning evaluation research; rather it is a precondition for usable evaluation research. Only when the evaluator has insight into the interests and motivations of other actors in the system, into the roles that he himself is consciously or inadvertently playing, the obstacles and opportunities that impinge upon the evaluative effort, and the limitations and possibilities for putting the results of evaluation to work—only with sensitivity to the politics of evaluation research—can the evaluator be as creative and strategically useful as he should be. (as cited in Weiss, 1973/1993, pp. 93-94)
Post-truth Influence as the New Propaganda
Scholars, activists, and certain policymakers are advocating for transformative actions to confront the existential dangers facing living species. However, the advantaged will forcefully organize against learning from past mistakes and adapting rules to better fit ecological systems (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Ostrom, 2007). Industrial sectors and influential elites whose economic interests are at risk from these changes are crafting post-truth narratives to slow or block progress, creating an environment in which scientifically grounded information is overshadowed by campaigns that sow doubt and skepticism. Misinformation undermines efforts to implement policies aimed at achieving transformative goals, while the deliberate distortion, discrediting, or disregard of scientific evidence poses a serious threat to societal well-being. These misleading narratives, often spread through social media, are further amplified by prominent figures, influencing public policies. Contemporary examples of this post-truth phenomenon include the deliberate undermining of COVID-19 prevention measures and attempts to derail efforts addressing the environmental polycrisis—both of which have the potential to disrupt established economic systems and existing power structures (Brousselle, 2024, 2025).
Post-truth is not a singular phenomenon but rather a complex set of tactics aimed at influencing and manipulating public opinion, often driven by powerful economic and political interests. These tactics typically target ideas or initiatives that have the potential to drive transformative change (Brousselle, 2024, 2025).
The concept of 'post-truth' represents a more advanced and widespread form of propaganda (Poulakidakos et al., 2018). While disinformation and opinion manipulation are not new—propaganda has been around for centuries (Arendt, 2012/1967; Bernays, 1928; Chomsky, 2002)—the advent of social media has amplified these methods to unprecedented levels. As a result, new forms of opinion manipulation are emerging that are more sophisticated than ever before (Brousselle, 2024).
Post-truth tactics manifest through a variety of influence and manipulation strategies, operating across multiple levels and channels. These strategies are effective because they are deployed in a coordinated manner, working together in ways that amplify their impact. As such, these tactics should not be examined in isolation, as doing so would fail to capture the full extent of their implementation and potential consequences (Brousselle, 2024).
Post-truth strategies don’t aim at directly opposing scientific evidence, but rather at raising controversy and doubt, creating polarization and undermining scientific consensus, all of which impede implementing transformative policies. Tactics are often insidious and are implemented in parallel, with social media, with its engagement-focused algorithms, amplifying divergent and polarizing views (Brousselle, 2024). The doubt created about truth is not the result of single effort, but rather the combination of coordinated efforts. Tactics observed include (a) blurring of the divide between “facts, opinions and interpretations” (Brahms, 2020, pp. 2, mentioning Arendt), (b) direct attacks on science credibility by funding pseudo-research institutes or promising researchers compromising their independence and credibility, (c) polarization of opinion by supporting anti-governmental groups (for example, the Freedom Convoy in Canada) or supporting populist movements (Marquardt & Lederer, 2022; Marquardt et al., 2022), (d) creation of strategic alliances with specific groups (some Indigenous leaders and communities, for example) to increase the legitimacy of industrial groups and thus reduce their vulnerability to divestment campaigns by meeting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) sustainability investment criteria (CAPP, 2021), (e) recruitment of influential spokespersons to convey their messages (Bernays, 1928), (f) increased legitimacy of threatened industrial groups though involvement in visible but non-transformative action, (g) involvement of activists and researchers in visible but shallow activities as a way to divert their efforts from more transformative action (Brousselle, 2024; Lamb et al., 2020).
Post-truth tactics seek to counterbalance initiatives that would potentially have a transformative potential in our societies, diverting our attention from prioritizing actions urgently needed to preserve human and other living species’ health and well-being. These tactics are successful because they are taking place on fertile ground. First, the multiple layers of critical threats reduce our capacity to respond effectively, which reinforces the tendency to ignore these realities and thus stifles transformative action (Gifford, 2011; McIntyre, 2018). Second, our societies are effectively maintaining systems of exclusion that further alienate vulnerable groups and people. Persisting social injustices nurture the politics of discontent as well as populist movements. We have observed a global movement of distrust in public institutions (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020), which preventive measures implemented during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have only exacerbated. We have also observed groups rallying against elites and governments (for example, Q-Anon and the Freedom Convoy) that are destabilizing governments and encouraging politicians to adopt more “moderate” positions than the bold action a socio-ecological transition requires. (as cited in Brousselle, 2025, p. 97)
Evaluators undoubtedly have varied experiences of post-truth. Those working directly on topics that potentially affect powerful economic interests may be confronted with post-truth tactics more directly. Furthermore, evaluators may not necessarily have the same level of agency to shape their own work, particularly if they work as consultants or within government. However, whatever the topic or their evaluations or their professional status, all evaluators may work in contexts where people’s systems of beliefs are influenced by post-truth content. How can evaluators practice in a world that is so fragmented, polarized, and where science is contested? In the following, we will explore potential pathways evaluators can adopt to resist post-truth tactics and disinformation.
Fighting back against post-truth strategies and tactics will involve that evaluators realize “that they are not dealing with an orthodox scientific debate based on sound data and evidence, but a well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests” (Gorski & Yamey, 2021). The evaluator will not be able to counteract disinformation and opinion manipulation strategies by presenting better facts, better information, or through implementing better deliberative processes (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020). (as cited in Brousselle, 2024, p. 542)
In highly polarized environments, collaborative and participatory methods are often ineffective. House and Howe's Deliberative Democratic Evaluation has been suggested as a way forward in political contexts (Contandriopoulos & Brousselle, 2012; House & Howe, 1999). However, post-truth contexts present distinct challenges. For instance, the foundational assumption that there are shared grounds for democratic debate may no longer hold true. Reflecting on Deliberative Democratic Evaluation, which he championed throughout his career, House acknowledges that such processes are “not potent enough" (House, 2020, p. 33) to address the complexities of the current post-truth era.
A vibrant public sphere, where individuals are informed and engaged in public deliberation on the pressing issues of the day, is a pre-requisite to a healthy democracy. (Jarman, 2016, p. 179)
In certain contexts, the conditions necessary for applying deliberative democratic approaches are no longer viable (House & Howe, 1999; House, 2020). As discussed earlier, the spread of disinformation, the erosion of independent journalism, the rise of echo chambers on social media, etc., create an environment where debate is no longer valued. In such settings, truth is undermined, which in turn weakens the foundations of democracy (Brousselle, 2024).
As Arendt ominously warned:
It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism – an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world – and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end – is being destroyed.
And for this trouble there is no remedy. It is but the other side of the disturbing contingency of all factual reality. Since everything that has actually happened in the realm of human affairs could just as well have been otherwise, the possibilities for lying are boundless, and this boundlessness makes for self-defeat. (Arendt, 2005/1967, p. 309)
From an evaluation perspective, there are two possible scenarios: Either the level of polarization still permits the construction of bridges between diverse communities—defined not by geography—each with its own distinct feelings, values, beliefs, and representations (Yanow, 2000), or such bridges are no longer possible. In the second case, advocating for scientific consensus would likely be futile. Regardless of the situation, gaining a thorough understanding and mapping of the context is essential for an evaluator to be effective and to select the most suitable processes (Brousselle, 2024).
Post-truth is undermining the core principles of many established methods within our field. The challenge now is not just about engaging various stakeholders in evaluation processes, but also about protecting the integrity of both the evaluation process and its outcomes from the influence of disinformation. Insights from existing research on working within polarized contexts and addressing climate denial can provide valuable guidance in navigating these challenges (Brousselle, 2024):
1. Informing participants from the start about the risks of disinformation, the existence of contentious topics, and competing interests can help debunk tactics of influence if discussed before they happen (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a).
2. Highlighting scientific consensus and providing scientific information has been identified as contributing to building shared understanding even in groups with divided positions (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a).
3. Separating facts and observations from recommendations and policy options, recognizing the importance of deliberation around policy choices, so that communities and people can contribute to determining what options have most value for them (Fischer, 2021; Yanow, 2000). Most evaluation projects focus on assessing the value of various policy or program options rather than contributing to scientific knowledge. Clearly delineating between information that is factual and policy options might be a way to reintegrate democratic debate. Arendt emphasized that it is not the role of scientists to advocate for policy options without distinguishing between what the science indicates and what the policy choices are (Arendt, 2012 [1967]). Furthermore, focusing on communicating policy options rather than focusing on polarizing topics is more likely to rally support from people with divergent perspectives (Lewandowsky, 2021a).
4. Using culturally responsive language (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a). Messages designed to echo participants’ “cultural frame of reference are particularly easy to understand (Jones and Song, 2014) and have greater impact” (Lewandowsky, 2021a: 10). Formulating the policy option based on accepted cultural norms will foster the chances of dialogue around a project. Examples of such strategies exist in other domains (Jones et al., 2020).
Combining these different elements while designing their project should provide evaluators with solid grounds to resist and fight back post-truth strategies and tactics. However, we acknowledge that these elements may seem limited when confronted with a high level of polarization and disinformation. What would be other inspirational avenues for dealing with post-truth politics? What can we learn from more specific studies on climate denial and other applied post-truth topics? Could some engagement activities from other disciplines be sources of inspiration for conducting evaluations in this post-truth era? Are there other processes that would support consensus, shared representations, and trust building? (as cited in Brousselle, 2024, p. 545)
Incorporating these various elements into project design can offer evaluators a strong foundation for countering and resisting post-truth strategies and tactics. However, we recognize that these tools may feel insufficient when confronting of extreme polarization and rampant disinformation.
Conclusion
Context is crucial, yet it is often treated as peripheral when, in fact, it is central to our capacity for action. It plays a major role in shaping our thoughts, mindset, beliefs, and overall human health and well-being. As an evaluator, thoroughly understanding the context enables us to make informed decisions that enhance your ability to be mindful and respectful of local communities while also influencing the situation being studied. The evaluator has the agency to shape processes and can steer the project to positively impact both people and the environment. Integrating contextual elements that foster positive social relationships and contribute to environmental restoration represents a transformative approach to evaluation. This approach lays the foundation for engaging various stakeholders in the intervention being evaluated, encouraging them to consider these critical factors.
The context is also evolving rapidly and is difficult to predict. For instance, artificial intelligence, which didn’t exist just a few years ago, is now impacting numerous spheres of activity, even as its power and potential consequences remain unclear. In this chapter, we have discussed the concept of risk and the post-truth context—issues that are highly relevant today but may shift in significance as time passes. The evaluator's ability to adapt and influence the context is rooted in their strategic capacity to navigate these changes. Therefore, evaluation in the 21st century must prioritize the contextual dynamics that matter, shaping the project accordingly while keeping the overarching goal of fostering positive change for all in mind.