Theories of Evaluation TIG Week: Reflections on Bridging Evaluation Theory and Practice by Sonia Baron

Date: Saturday, December 20, 2025

I am Sonia Baron, currently pursuing doctoral training in Evaluation and Applied Research Methods at Claremont Graduate University. Much of my learning, research, and professional practice over the past two years has centered on how to discuss, teach, and develop evaluation theories that meaningfully reflect the realities of evaluation practice. What follows is a set of lessons I’ve learned while writing, researching, and reflecting on evaluation theory, particularly how it fits into a changing landscape where evaluators must account for multiple and intersecting societal factors that shape the funding, design, and direction of programs being evaluated.

The first section offers insights for evaluators whose work is grounded primarily in academic or theoretical spaces, often within universities or research centers. The second section is directed toward evaluators whose practice is rooted in applied settings, where evaluation theories may not be the central focus but can nevertheless enrich their practice.

Lessons Learned for Evaluators Primarily Engaged in Theory

• Anchor theory in real-world constraints: Theorizing evaluation is most meaningful when it acknowledges the realities that practicing evaluators face. Discussions of evaluation theories, approaches, and frameworks should not exist in isolation from the pragmatic conditions under which evaluation occurs. Embedding time, budget, and contextual realities into theory-building can help ensure that theories serve the practice they aim to describe.

• Recognize that merit, worth, and value are context-bound: Foundational to evaluation is the question of “value.” Yet, in practice, notions of merit or utility are highly situational. A rapid assessment conducted under tight timelines, for instance, may prioritize utility and timeliness over depth. Theoretical discussions should therefore explore how evaluators operationalize value differently across contexts rather than assuming a single standard of rigor or merit.

• Acknowledge that although evaluation theory is not method-driven, practice often is: Many evaluation theories are intentionally conceptual rather than methodological. However, practicing evaluators often interact with theory through methods—logic models, designs, indicators, and data. Theory-driven discussions can bridge this gap by clarifying how conceptual principles manifest in specific methodological choices. For example, utilization-focused evaluation may align with participatory data collection, while theory-driven evaluation might emphasize causal linkages and logic testing.

Lessons Learned for Evaluators Primarily Engaged in Practice

• Start with the theories closest to your work: The literature on evaluation theories, frameworks, and approaches can feel and look overwhelming! It can be helpful to begin with those that reflect your evaluation context—developmental, participatory, or empowerment evaluation, for example—and explore how their core ideas align with the goals of your programs and stakeholders.

• Translate theoretical insights into reflective tools: Theory becomes practical when it guides reflection. Practitioners can use theoretical principles to ask better questions about their own evaluations: Whose values are represented? What assumptions underlie our criteria of success? Embedding such reflection points into evaluation planning can strengthen both methodological rigor and ethical grounding.

• Use theory to navigate complexity, not to overcomplicate: Evaluators often work in dynamic systems influenced by policy shifts, funding cycles, and stakeholder expectations. Theory should not add academic distance but rather provide a framework for understanding complexity and guiding adaptive practice. When used well, theory can help practitioners explain why programs evolve as they do—and how evaluators can respond thoughtfully.

In conclusion… when bridging theory and practice, evaluators can co-create a more adaptive, grounded, and reflective field—one that honors both conceptual depth and the lived realities of practice. Evaluation, after all, thrives when we not only measure outcomes but also examine the values, assumptions, and theories that guide our understanding of what “success” means.

The American Evaluation Association is hosting Theories of Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the Theories of Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our Theories of Evaluation 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 theaea365 webpageso 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 theAmerican Evaluation Associationand 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.