Evaluation’s Journey towards the Future, Part 7. A Collective Navigation System for this time of Polycrisis

In this second last post in this series I, like others, argue that it is not enough that the field evaluation simply keeps on evolving. Instead, we need to reframe and reposition evaluation for this exceptional time in humanity’s history.

We find ourselves today in a liminal space – the space between what was and what will be; between the ‘no-longer’ and the ‘not-yet’.

Or hyper-liminality: a profound transitional space where old worldviews, outdated structures and ways of working and behaving dissolve faster than new ones can solidify.

It is precisely here, where so much is uncertain and unstable, that evaluation can realise its full potential.    

Far from being empty, this space is full of possibilities waiting for the right conditions to emerge. Behind us lies evaluation as a valuable but limited technical practice, shaped by working with predetermined outcomes in stable systems. Ahead lies evaluation with all the extraordinary potential it has for this time.

People are drowning in data and information, but starved for wisdom to navigate complexity and uncertainty with sound judgment about what is feasible and desirable, where we infuse knowledge with values and a deep understanding of what matters for whom, when, where and why.

We may need better predictions, but we most certainly need better navigation, more skilful responses to what is emerging around us.

This means that conventional evaluation is now outdated. We know it often does more harm than good: the focus on short-term projects without a long-term framework; conducted within artificial timeframes; looking backward only, or forward with a static or linear notion of the future; concentrating on funders’ interests; promoting simplistic understandings of how change happens, ignoring the systemic view of life that has been the philosophical grounding of the majority of societies over millennia.

But now we have the convergence of several dynamics that can change this:

• This (hyper)liminal space, this transition time when old systems fade and new worlds stir
• The inspiring nature of evaluative thinking
• Our increasing engagement with long-ignored wisdoms
• Our growing application of complexity insights
• The commitment among many to improve our current practice.

Can evaluation be the world’s collective navigation system towards the transformative changes we need for people and planet to survive and thrive?

Evaluation’s unique value for this time of transition

Evaluation possesses a combination of qualities unique among human inquiries, exceptionally well suited for this time:

One, it explicitly intends to be useful, to make a positive difference right now.

While research asks "What is? How does this work? What might be?" evaluation asks more urgent questions: "Given what is, what is valuable? So what for this context, these people, these values, at this time? What should be done?"

Two, it is based on evaluative thinking (or evaluative reasoning), which can draw in so many elements when we do our work well:

• critical thinking—questioning assumptions, values; systematically examining evidence;
• integrative, holistic thinking—considering patterns and relationships across boundaries within the ‘bigger picture’;
• contextual thinking—grasping how the co-evolution of circumstances, culture and history, together with innovations and shocks, shape everything;
• relational thinking—understanding people, events and concepts through their relationships to each other, to systems, to nature, to the universe around us;
• creative thinking—envisioning new possibilities;
• practical thinking—concentrating on implementable interventions and solutions;
• reflective thinking and learning—adapting approaches based on experience; and increasingly,
• evidence-informed reasoning—sceptical about simplistic explanations and data for data’s sake;
• anticipatory or ‘futures’ thinking—envisioning future possibilities systematically.

Three, it (now) honours complexity. Evaluative thinking has to deal with complexity, seeking patterns and connections without forcing premature simplification. It asks: "How do these interacting forces create this value, why, how, for whom, when, under what conditions and tensions, with what positive and negative impacts and trade-offs?" This capacity becomes essential when linear solutions fail as challenges and crises cascade.

Four, it can integrate diverse knowledges. Evaluative thinking provides the framework for bringing together insights from different knowledge systems—scientific data, Indigenous wisdom, lived experience, artistic expression—and asks which are most relevant for specific situations.

Five, it makes values explicit. Evaluative thinking demands the surfacing and discussion of values underlying judgments of ‘good’, ‘effective’, ‘successful’, ‘just’, etc. In a world of clashing worldviews and existential threats, this explicit negotiation of values becomes exceptionally important.

Six, it still needs humans! AI can inform evaluation, but (as yet) it cannot be or comprehensively do evaluation. It is powerful for pattern recognition and prediction, but still lacks emotional intelligence, deep contextual understanding, ethical reasoning, the ability to navigate contested values, and the capacity for empathetic, participatory sense-making.

We know evaluation has all these valuable qualities, but we have to see and frame (and especially practice) it differently.

Drawing from long-ignored wisdoms

Conventional evaluation still operates with machine logic—assuming that social change works mechanically with predictable inputs, outcomes and solutions within set timeframes. It struggles profoundly with the uncertainty and emergence that characterise our current moment.

Despite all we already know, application is still rare even of highly relevant ‘navigation-oriented’ evaluation approaches already in the mainstream, such as Developmental Evaluation, Principles-Focused Evaluation, Real-Time Evaluation, well-timed (systemic) Rapid Evaluations and other systems-informed frameworks and approaches. These practices are particular difficult to embed in governments in both the Global South and Global North. And evidence is still limited of effective organisational learning informed by evaluation evidence.

So I find it fascinating how very salient ancient yet still lived concepts in Indigenous, Eastern, Islamic, Persian, African and other cultures are for modern times, and how well they can replace or blend with convention to support efforts to reposition the value of evaluation.

One of the Indigenous concepts offer an ancient, radically different and much more appropriate way of framing Evaluation as Navigation System for modern times: Wayfinding.  

Drawing from ancient Polynesian navigation systems, applied today, wayfinding requires moving through uncertain terrain by reading subtle signs, adapting continuously and maintaining orientation without forcing predetermined routes.

Applying the notion of wayfinding to evaluation would help us to embrace uncertainty and instability instead of being fixated with conventional practice measuring predetermined outcomes against indicators. It will transform evaluation from breeding anxiety to cultivating the wisdom to thrive under such circumstances – transforming evaluation's entire purpose and practice.

The 2024 Australasian Evaluation Society conference adopted Wayfinding as its theme, recognising how First Nations People have navigated toward thriving cultures over millennia, including through evaluative learnings. Indigenous evaluators have long navigated complex social terrain, and leading Indigenous and African scholars such as Nicky Bowman, Bagele Chilisa and many others have consistently highlighted the value and practices of applying traditional yet still highly relevant wisdom to our field. Their work brings to life ancient insights relevant to our metaphor of evaluation as navigation. Some examples:

Cyclical time: Indigenous navigation honours seasonal rhythms and seven-generation impacts rather than racing toward endpoints.

Relational orientation: Navigation requires reading relationships—between stars and currents, past and future, individual and collective wellbeing.

Pattern recognition: Traditional navigators read subtle environmental signs across multiple variables—precisely the skills needed for social complexity.

Adaptive learning: Navigation constantly adjusts course while maintaining orientation—perfect for evaluation in uncertain times.

These Indigenous frameworks complement or replace Western analytical traditions, creating wiser, more useful evaluation approaches. This is especially important as overwhelmingly Western perspectives continue to inform evaluation theory and practice despite rhetoric to the contrary.

We should not forget that other philosophical traditions, such as those from East and Southeast Asia, also offer sophisticated alternatives to Western linear, binary thinking, with profound implications for evaluation practice. They provide well-documented frameworks for handling complexity and contradiction. For example:

Yin-yang philosophy reshapes how evaluators can approach paradox and tradeoffs. Instead of binary success/failure judgments, it highlights the productive tension of opposites—like a community programme that empowers local leadership while stirring conflict as new voices emerge.

This ‘both/and’ logic shows that advancing one outcome may temporarily weaken another, just as yin contains the seed of yang. It offers evaluation with a dynamic balance framework for tracking complementary forces over time, revealing how apparent failures may be essential steps toward lasting success.

Buddhist ideas like the Middle Way and wu wei (effortless action) support adaptive evaluation. The Middle Way steers evaluators between extremes of objectivity and subjectivity, while wu wei encourages alignment with natural systems, not rigid frameworks, preferring societal or organisational flows and rhythms over rigid control.

Interdependence theory supports systems thinking by showing that outcomes arise from complex, interconnected webs—prompting evaluators to explore how relationships, context and intervention components co-create results.

Four-fold logic furthers this by holding space for propositions that are true, false, both, or neither—enabling evaluators to embrace multiple perspectives without premature conclusions.

We need internal and external navigation skills

Even in a collaborative wayfinding framework, external or ‘independent’ evaluation has crucial value.

Like skilled navigators who bring knowledge of distant waters and instruments while learning from local pilots, external or ‘independent’ evaluators can offer comparative insights and fresh perspectives that can help those on the journey to an unknown destination see patterns they might miss from within their own navigation systems.

The key shift here is from evaluation as external judgment to being a supportive companion for sharing knowledge, mutual learning and multiple forms of accountability alongside those who relish the journey—rather than standing in judgment over them.

This shift requires from us to be honest about the dire need for organisational cultures that support more adaptive, relationship- and future-centred approaches to decision-making, planning, risk management, accountability and learning.

Complexity science validates these ancient wisdoms

Complexity navigator Sonja Blignaut helps us understand why, for example, the concept of Indigenous wayfinding works in complex systems.

Complexity thinking works with "the evolutionary potential of the present”.

This captures what evaluation in support of transformation must become: not external judgment of efforts to improve or transform, but using evaluative thinking and practices to help carefully cultivate conditions where collective wisdom emerges.

It means moving from studies that extract data, to co-creating inquiry processes that strengthen organisations, collaboratives, communities and societies’ capacity for ongoing learning and adaptation.

Evaluators shift from expert assessors to skilled facilitators who can create “holding environments" for stakeholders to engage in "messy, real-world collective wayfinding”.

This transforms evaluation from backward-looking assessment into a forward-sensing capacity for collective intelligence.

Sonja’s framework offers practical elements: honest orientation about current realities, direction that is "specific enough to prioritise yet wide enough to inspire exploration”, acknowledging constraints while creating safe experimentation spaces, building local learning capacity and establishing rapid feedback loops.” (This has been a key part of how China’s transformation has been achieved.)

Her focus on creating conditions for growth rather than controlling outcomes aligns with Indigenous understanding of evaluation as tending relationships and supporting collective flourishing.

Like skilled gardeners or traditional navigators, wayfinding evaluators cannot force results, but can skillfully tend conditions where healthy development becomes more likely.

Many challenges remain

Repositioning evaluation in this way inevitably leads to important practical considerations that have to be addressed with political will and technical expertise – a very significant challenge. Examples include:

Power dynamics remain central: Evaluation is inherently political. While wayfinding offers more collaborative alternatives, it does not automatically resolve questions about who controls resources or makes decisions. Even participatory processes can serve oppressive ends if underlying power structures remain unchanged.

Scale and institutional realities: Most evaluation occurs within institutions operating on machine logic—predetermined budgets, timelines and accountability requirements. Transforming practice requires simultaneously transforming institutional cultures. This represents very significant practical challenges.

Rigour and accountability: Critics worry that emphasising adaptation might compromise systematic inquiry and evidence-based conclusions. The challenge lies in maintaining methodological rigour while embracing uncertainty and cultural responsiveness.

Resource requirements: Wayfinding or ‘navigational’ approaches often demand more time, deeper relationships and different skills than conventional evaluation. This raises feasibility questions, especially in resource-constrained or crisis situations requiring rapid response.

Measurement needs: Even adaptive, relationship-centered evaluation must sometimes enable comparison across contexts or measurement of specific outcomes. The question then becomes balancing wayfinding principles with legitimate standardisation and accountability needs.

In conclusion: Repositioning evaluation for this time

We stand at evaluation's threshold moment.

Behind us lies valuable but limited technical practice focused on measuring predetermined outcomes in stable systems.

Ahead lies evaluation as one of humanity's essential tools for intentional evolution and transformation, a practice of collective wisdom that helps us all to navigate toward more just and sustainable futures.

In our time of transition between worlds, the ancient capacity for shared wisdom about value and valuing, enhanced by contemporary insights, offers some of our most promising pathways towards the transformation ahead.

When evaluation serves ‘flourishing’ rather than bureaucratic compliance, the gap between findings and use will disappear.

When designed as collective wayfinding from the beginning, stakeholder defensiveness can transform into productive, agency-strengthening collaborative inquiry.

When honouring diverse knowledge systems—including Indigenous wayfinding wisdom and Asian and other philosophical frameworks that skilfully handle contradiction and paradox—cultural responsiveness emerges naturally.

Like ancient Polynesian navigators reading currents and stars to find islands across vast oceans, we are learning to sense subtle signs pointing toward thriving futures amid uncertainty.

We cannot predict exactly where this navigation leads, but we can practice wayfinding together—reading signs, tending conditions, trusting the deep intelligence that emerges when diverse knowledge systems work in harmony.

The path is made by walking – or the course by sensing, by navigating. We need to trust that the future of evaluation will unfold with every effort towards a more collaborative, adaptive, wisdom-centred practice.