Short Abstract

A case study about embedding participatory and theory-based evaluation in a research team. The example used contribution analysis and co-produced tools to build an evaluation culture in a research team to demonstrate value while trying to avoid M&E becoming a tick-box activity.

Description

As institutional budgets tighten and non-income-generating activities face increasing scrutiny, evaluation has become a crucial means not only of improving programmes and projects but also of demonstrating their value and relevance. This paper explores how evaluation practices were introduced and embedded within a research team, referred to here as English Language Research, which had not previously been expected to evidence the impact or value of its work in such a systematic way. Introducing evaluation in this context required a sensitive and participatory approach that recognised both the autonomy of research practice and the need for accountability.

The paper presents a case study of an evaluator joining the team as a member of staff to establish monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices that were both practical and theoretically informed. Drawing on participatory and co-production principles, the approach aimed to integrate evaluation into the team’s existing culture of inquiry, positioning it as a tool for learning and reflection rather than as an external audit mechanism. The process sought not only to demonstrate outcomes but also offer learning opportunities for the team.

Evaluating the impact of a research team working across a large and complex organisation presented distinct challenges. Activities such as dissemination, relationship-building, and collaboration often contributed indirectly to outcomes, making attribution difficult. Furthermore, there was initial concern that introducing a monitoring culture might reduce research activity to a ‘tick-box exercise’ or fail to recognise the value of exploratory, developmental work.

To address these challenges, a participatory evaluation framework was developed, engaging the team at every stage. Evaluation tools were co-created and refined through consultation, including the use of collaborative digital platforms (such as Padlet) that allowed members to share feedback, build collective insights and co-construct an evolving picture of outcomes. Regular team meetings were used to share findings and invite reflection on the M&E process, embedding evaluation within the team’s ongoing practices rather than positioning it as a separate requirement.

Alongside this participatory process, a contribution analysis approach was applied to explore the team’s influence within the wider organisational system. Contribution analysis provides a structured, theory-informed method for testing whether the evidence reasonably supports a hypothesised chain of outcomes. Combined with a collaboratively developed theory of change, this enabled the team to articulate how their research, dissemination and partnership activities contributed to longer-term institutional outcomes, even where direct attribution was not possible. However, aligning anecdotal and qualitative insights with structured evidence remains an area for further development. The next stage will involve developing case studies to explore how different areas of contribution interconnect within a broader picture of institutional impact.

The paper concludes by reflecting on how participatory and theory-based approaches can be combined to build evaluative capacity, foster ownership of evidence and support research teams to demonstrate value in ways that are meaningful, proportionate, and aligned with academic practice.