Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2026
Hello! My name is Stephen Gyan, and I am a doctoral student in the MESA PhD program at Boston College. My work focuses on how evaluation theory and methods can be applied to understand and support systems change in education and socioeconomic development.
I entered the evaluation field with training in business administration and experience leading interventions. Through practice and doctoral study, I have encountered a constant stream of new frameworks, theories, and methods. The learning curve can feel overwhelming. New terminology continues to emerge, and the list of expected competencies, including mixed methods, cultural responsiveness, facilitation, data science, artificial intelligence, and systems thinking keeps expanding. This rapid growth reflects the evolving nature of evaluation. It also raises an important question for those new to the field: How do we decide what matters most for building strong, long-term evaluation practice?
One approach that has helped me is returning to a core set of foundational questions I have identified through practice and study, rather than trying to master every new tool. These questions include:
Spending time with these questions has helped me better understand different approaches and methods. They strengthen my evaluation reasoning and improve my ability to choose and adapt methods thoughtfully.
As new tools emerge, including artificial intelligence, there is growing excitement about what evaluation can do. At the same time, there is concern that tools may outpace our judgment. For me, foundational thinking provides stability. It helps ensure that, even as tools and techniques change, my approach remains grounded in clear reasoning about value, evidence, and context.
I have also found it useful to reflect on the relationship between instruments and reality: Do tools reveal reality, or do our assumptions shape what we design and measure? These questions are increasingly relevant as automated measurement and algorithmic decision-making become more common.
Looking at the history of evaluation has also been helpful. As the field has expanded across contexts, its methods and approaches have evolved. At the same time, this history shows that evaluation has always been grounded in purpose. Understanding this reinforces why foundational questions matter. They help clarify what an evaluation is trying to achieve, even as methods change. It reminds me that evaluation is not just technical. It is shaped by context, values, and purpose.
A few scholars have helped me think more deeply about these issues:
For those new to evaluation, it can be tempting to focus on mastering the latest tools. However, building a strong foundation is just as important. Returning to core questions about value, evidence, and purpose supports clearer reasoning, better decisions, and adaptability over time. In a field that continues to evolve, these foundations help keep practice both flexible and grounded.
AEA is hosting GSNE Week with our colleagues in the Graduate Student and New Evaluators AEA Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our GSNE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.