The United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) begins its document Norms and Standards for Evaluation (2016) with a clear definition of what evaluation means, emphasizing that it aims to “promote accountability and learning”. Similarly, although the debate on this subject, which is fueled by academics, representatives of organizations and professionals in the field, can sometimes vary somewhat in terms of the list of objectives, there is a common idea that the purpose of evaluation is: on the one hand, to acquire knowledge about interventions; and on the other, to demonstrate their results and performance.

Despite this natural convergence, it is in the relationship between these two objectives that the first doubts begin to arise. While the term “learning” is positive and open, referring directly to the idea of acquiring knowledge and improving, the same is not true of the term “accountability”. This is because, unlike in English-speaking countries – where the term “accountability” is more commonly used – in Portuguese “prestar contas” almost immediately introduces a dynamic of control, suggesting less positive connotations.

To try to resolve this apparent contrast, it is worth reviewing what these terms mean in the context of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). In this context, “learning” refers to understanding the reasons for the greater or lesser success of interventions, and is an essential tool for improving the performance of future interventions by acquiring knowledge about the present (and the past). No less importantly, the idea of “accountability” is related to the need for transparency and accountability in an organization’s use of resources (Instituto Camões, 2014).

In addition to almost always appearing together in debates about M&E, these two objectives sum up the usefulness of an evaluation, which, according to UNEG (2016), “is manifested through its use in making relevant and timely contributions to organizational learning, informed decision-making processes and accountability for results.”

Does all this mean that the coexistence of these two objectives cannot be questioned? Not exactly. For example, according to Adams (2007), learning and accountability are often incompatible objectives. This is because evaluation reports are often very long and follow structural rules which, while mainly serving accountability needs, do not lead to learning. And in this sense, the potential for learning, according to the author, is often hidden, marginalized and seen as irrelevant. A possible solution to this presumed incompatibility would then be to separate the two evaluation logics: evaluations should be focused either on learning or on accountability.

Although relevant, after more than 10 years, we can say that Adams’ predictions have not come true. In 2019, we continue to aim to have the best of both worlds: to carry out an evaluation that not only manages to be accountable to funders and donors – meeting their short-term demands – or to demonstrate transparency in the spending of taxpayers’ resources, but that also allows us to learn from the work done and improve interventions in the long term.

The issue remains topical: despite the priority given by organizations and practitioners to the need to acquire knowledge that can improve their interventions, the demands of funders, donors and contributors to know the results of the social investment they have contributed to cannot be ignored either. However, as long as these two forces are pushing in different directions, the potential of M&E processes will only be partially achieved. Perhaps the focus is more on communicating results and not so much on separating objectives. As long as there are still no communication products adapted to the needs of all stakeholders and capable of proposing a clear and comprehensive vision of the system of relationships linking interventions to change, the evaluation process will always result in a missed opportunity. Contrary to what Adams suggested, isn’t the solution really in greater integration between the different “souls” of evaluation?

(Teresa Caeiro)