Evaluation blogs,podcasts,and webinars in the second half of 2025: Roundup review V

Abstract

This “roundup” review of evaluation blogs, podcasts, and webinars covers the second half of 2025. It discusses the rise of two new podcasts on realist evaluation, reflecting on perspectives of realist evaluation’s distinctiveness and the state of current debates on contentious issues such as on realist interviews and realist trials. It also continues to trace the debate regarding what counts as evidence discussed in roundup review IV in blogs regarding discussions at the Australian Evaluation Society Conference. The review identifies evidentiary criteria as a possible entry point to move beyond debates on evidence hierarchies. It highlights reflections on the benefits and challenges of pre-defining criteria for making evaluative judgements related to complex change processes.

Keywords

realist evidence criteria

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aston

(2022) Balancing biases in evaluation. Medium, 22 June. Available at: https://thomasmtaston.medium.com/balancing-biases-in-evaluation-43e0999b2cfa

Aston

Apgar

(2022) Quality of Evidence Rubrics for Single Cases. UK Evaluation Society. Available at: https://evaluation.org.uk/community-learning/resources/quality-of-evidence-rubrics-for-single-cases/

Bonell

Fletcher

Morton

et al. (2012) Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & Medicine 75(12): 2299–2306.

Bonell

Warren

Melendez-Torres

(2022) Methodological reflections on using qualitative research to explore the causal mechanisms of complex health interventions. Evaluation 28(2): 166–181.

Bonell

Melendez-Torres

Warren

(2024) Realist Trials and Systematic Reviews: Rigorous, Useful Evidence to Inform Health Policy. Cambridge University Press.

Boyd

Gasper

Trout

(eds) (1991) The Philosophy of Science. The MIT Press.

Copestake

(2025) Mixed-methods impact evaluation in international development practice: Distinguishing between quant-led and qual-led models. Journal of Development Effectiveness 17(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2024.2351892

Danziger

Levav

Avnaim-Pesso

(2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 6889–6892.

Delahais

Lacouette-Fougère

(2019) Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Analysis of the contribution of 65 evaluations to the modernisation of public action in France. Evaluation 1(3): 1–18.

10.

Delahais

Thyrard

(2025) Conversations in evaluation – Exploring 30 years of debates in our field. Evaluation 32(1): 11–36.

11.

Fletcher

Jamal

Moore

et al. (2016) Realist complex intervention science: Applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation 22(3): 286–303.

12.

Fugard

(2025) Seven persistent myths about evaluation. Available at: https://andifugard.info/seven-persistent-myths-about-evaluation/

13.

Gilmore

Uwamahoro

(2025) Realist data collection in less familiar settings: Exploring challenges and strategies. In: Manzano

Williams

(eds) Realist Evaluation: Principles and Practice. Routledge, pp. 117–134.

14.

Greenhalgh

Pawson

Wong

et al. (2016) Quality standards for realist evaluation (For evaluators and peer-reviewers, The RAMESES II Project). Available at: http://ramesesproject.org/media/RE_Quality_Standards_for_evaluators_and_peer_reviewers.pdf

15.

Greenhalgh

Pawson

Wong

et al. (2017) The realist interview. Available at: http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/RAMESES_II_Realist_interviewing.pdf

16.

Hill

(1965) The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58(5): 295–300.

17.

HM Treasury (2026) The green book: UK guidance on appraisal. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/698dbcd17da91680ad7f4308/The_Green_Book_2026.pdf

18.

Jamal

Fletcher

Shackleton

et al. (2015) The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT : A theoretical and methodological case-example. Trials 16: 466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0980-y

19.

King

(2025a) Applying Bradford Hill criteria. Substack, 19 September. Available at: https://juliankingnz.substack.com/p/applying-bradford-hill-criteria-to?r=8fet1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

20.

King

(2025b) Gold standards and double standards. Substack, 5 August. Available at: https://juliankingnz.substack.com/p/gold-standards-and-double-standards

21.

King

(2025c) Goldilocks and the three criteria. Substack, 1 September. Available at: https://juliankingnz.substack.com/p/goldilocks-and-the-three-criteria?r=8fet1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

22.

Koleros

Moses

(2025) Expanding the evaluator’s toolbox: From determining to developing value in systems change. Available at: https://unstuck.systems/expanding-the-evaluators-toolbox-from-determining-to-developing-value-in-systems-change/

23.

Lemire

Kwako

Bohni Nielsen

et al. (2019) What is this thing called a mechanism? Findings from a review of realist evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation (Special Issue: Causal Mechanisms in Program Evaluation) 2020(167): 73–86.

24.

Mackie

(1965) Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2(4): 245–264.

25.

Manzano

(2024) A realist understanding of bias in qualitative data collection. In: Manzano

Williams

(eds) Realist Evaluation: Principles and Practice. Routledge.

26.

Manzano

Williams

(2024) Realist Evaluation: Principles and Practice. Routledge.

27.

Nielsen

Jaspers

SØ

Lemire

(2023) The curious case of the realist trial: Methodological oxymoron or unicorn? Evaluation 30(1): 120–137.

28.

Patton

(2023) Public policy evaluation: Origins and evolution. In: Varone

Jacob

Bundi

(eds) Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation. Elgar, pp.16–30. Available at: https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800884892/book-part-9781800884892-8.xml

29.

Pawson

(2013) The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Sage.

30.

Pawson

(2018) Realist memorabilia. In: Emmel

Greenhalgh

Manzano

et al. (eds) Doing Realist Research. Sage, pp. 203–221.

31.

Pawson

(2024) How to Think Like a Realist: A Methodology for Social Science. Edward Elgar Publishing.

32.

Pawson

Manzano-Santaella

(2012) A realist diagnostic workshop. Evaluation 18(2): 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012440912

33.

Pawson

Tilley

(1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage.

34.

Powell

(2025) Criteria are good. But criteria for contribution are hard. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/criteria-good-contribution-hard-steve-powell-pf72e/?trackingId=RvWi3JPmwBmBpW77WpzXWQ%3D%3D

35.

Riley

(2025) What counts as evidence: A love letter to grant managers. LinkedIn, 30 July. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-counts-evidence-love-letter-grant-managers-jen-riley-6wsvf/?trackingId=5NI%2BxDKhp%2BxFwxOtD42a1A%3D%3D

36.

Riley

Branigan

(2025) Evaluation heavy hitters sum up big issues. Smarty Grants, 1 September. Available at: https://www.smartygrants.com.au/articles/evaluation-heavy-hitters-sum-up-the-big-issues

37.

Renmans

Castellano Pleguezuelo

(2023) Methods in realist evaluation: A mapping review. Evaluation and Program Planning 97: 102209.

38.

Rogers

(2023) Risky behaviour: Three predictable problems with the Australian center for evaluation. Medium, 28 August. Available at: https://medium.com/@patriciarogers_5608/risky-behaviour-three-predictable-problems-with-the-australian-centre-for-evaluation-e952622f52cc (accessed 17 November 2023).

39.

Rogers

Aston

(forthcoming) Critical review of the hierarchical approach to evidence – And why we need to take an ecology of evidence approach instead. In: Sridharan

Leeuw

(eds) From Silos to Ecologies: Towards an Ecology of Evidence to Navigate Solutions. Routledge.

40.

Shadish

Cook

Leviton

(1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Sage.

41.

Skivington

Matthews

Simpson

et al. (2021) A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 374: n2061.

42.

Stern

Stame

Mayne

et al. (2012) Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations: Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International Development. Department for International Development.

43.

The Realist Hub (2025) Truth, lies, and bias in qualitative research: A realist perspective with professor Ana Manzano. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyM_48G1uPA

44.

The Realist Lens (2025a) Episode 1 – What is Realist Research? Geoff Wong. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA8MTBdBOQ

45.

The Realist Lens (2025b) Episode 7 – The realist interview with Ana Manzano. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkVRjIHN3I

46.

The Realist Lens (2025c) Episode 12 – Thinking like a realist: A conversation with Ray Pawson. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sEuTnUWuUk

47.

The Realist Lens (2026) Episode 19 – A unicorn or an oxymoron? The realist trial with Sebastian Lemire. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sc8aNvYRNI-le

48.

Westhorp

(2014) Realist Impact Evaluation: An Introduction (Methods Lab). Overseas Development Institute.

49.

Westhorp

(2018) Understanding mechanisms in realist evaluation and research. In: Emmel

Greenhalgh

Manzano

et al. (eds) Doing Realist Research. Sage, pp. 41–59.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB