Editors’ Notes

There are many intersections between evaluation and facilitation. The profession of evaluation is about applying systematic methods to gain knowledge, but it can focus on basic inquiry and investigation, monitoring and accountability, program improvement, and organizational learning, as well. The profession of facilitation focuses on work with groups, but again with a breadth of purposes from information and idea exchange to knowledge development, decision making, problem solving, conflict resolution, and team building. This issue explores the interplay between evaluation and facilitation, how one practice can inform and serve the other. Many evaluation steps are undertaken with groups and require evaluators to play a facilitative role—to engage stakeholders in meaningful conversation, to structure these discussions in ways that surface multiple perspectives, and to conduct focus groups on key data and make progress toward next steps or decision making. Facilitation can help groups map theories of change, undertake data collection through focus groups or other dialogues, participate in analysis of findings, and craft appropriate recommendations based on these findings. In each step, an evaluator must be cognizant of the interactions and power dynamics among group members, help differences of opinion emerge while finding common ground, and manage disparate agendas and conflicts. While each of these steps is explained in evaluation textbooks and publications and attention is given to describing facilitation approaches and techniques, how these approaches and techniques are applied and adapted in different situations and the skills and competencies needed to master them are not extensively discussed or well documented. In facilitation there are similar process steps—planning individual or multiple sessions, conducting those meetings, adjusting the plan in the moment, following up on the interactions and meeting content, and assessing the progress or results accomplished. A great deal of information is available about facilitative approaches and techniques, and while evaluating the process and outcome of the work is seen as critical to learning and helping groups make progress, little about purposeful evaluation of facilitation is published. The disciplines of evaluation and facilitation are different, but there are overlaps in the theories that underlie them. Social interdependence theory (see Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b, 1973, 2006; D. W. Johnson & F. P. Johnson, 2009; D. W. Johnson & R. T. Johnson, 1989, 2005; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Stevahn, 2011) provides one foundation for both evaluators and facilitators, describing how cooperative relationships among those involved in a process are more likely to result in interactions that benefit everyone. Research on evaluation use (see Alkin, Daillak, & White, 1979; Brandon & Singh, 2009; Cousins & Leithwood, 1986; K. Johnson et al., 2009; King & Pechman, 1984; Kirkhart, 2000; Ottoson & Martinez, 2010; Patton, 2008, 2012; Preskill & Caracelli, 1997; Shula & Cousins, 1997; Weiss, 1972, 1998) provides another supporting base, demonstrating the benefits of engaging and involving stakeholders in the development of shared meaning, deeper learning, and the use of evaluation results for decision making and quality improvement. Organizational theory is a third, with a broad base of literature related to learning and adaptation within organizations and how it takes place. The literature here is comprehensively summarized by Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Scott (2011). Among the most referenced theorists are Easterby-Smith, Crossan, and Nicolini (2000), Huber (1991), Lewin (1947, 1953), and Weick and Westley (1996). Evaluation and facilitation share the desire to “enable reflection” and “foster learning.” These elements are integral to moving forward, whether this means moving ahead to a next step in a multistep process or toward decisions that lead to improvements or problem solving, organizational change, or sustainability development. Facilitation, as a part of evaluation work, is not a new concept, given the development and growing usage of participatory and empowerment evaluation and action research. Many articles in New Directions in Evaluation address participatory evaluation. An issue from the late 90s, Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation (1998), and the more specialized issue Youth Participatory Evaluation (2003), provide a solid foundation. Both talk about facilitation as part of the process and relevant issues such as power sharing, objectivity, and competency in facilitation skills. Neither discusses how to evaluate facilitation and its impact on the evaluation process. Other NDE issues include articles that address facilitation processes in evaluation work (Amba & Stake, 2001; House & Howe, 2000; King, 2007; King, Cousins, & Whitmore, 2007; King, Nielsen, & Colby, 2004; Rotondo, 2012), but none describe methods, techniques, or evaluation of facilitation in any detail. The American Journal of Evaluation (AJE) publishes numerous articles related to organizational development and capacity building, along with articles on collaborative, participatory, empowerment, and democratic evaluation. While facilitation in each of these arenas is referenced, the discussion of approaches and techniques is neither broad nor deep. Little attention is given to evaluating facilitation itself. More notable is the December 2008 issue with articles discussing evaluation interactions (Cartland, Ruch-Ross, Mason, & Donohue 2008; Preskill & Boyle, 2008; Smits & Champagne, 2008). Other AJE issues with articles discussing facilitation include Cousins, Whitmore, and Shulha (2013); Friedman, Rothman, and Withers (2006); and Preskill, Zukerman, and Matthews (2003), but again, description of approaches or techniques is limited. Many resources are available on facilitation techniques and the skills involved (e.g., Bens, 2012; Hogan, 2002; Reddy, 1994, Schuman, 2005; Schwarz, 2002). They provide rich content and detail on various methods for working with groups, something not generally found in evaluation publications. However, the evaluation of facilitation work is not as widely used or written about as might be hoped. Two references noted above, by Reddy and by Schwarz, both cite evaluation of the facilitator, but provide little about the skills or competencies expected, or on what effect the implementation of these skills has on the group. These texts mention evaluation of a group's progress but provide no articulated framework for doing so. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, beginning publication in 1999, is the primary academic periodical in the facilitation field, covering organizational learning and development, group and system dynamics, values, approaches, and the application of facilitation skills. It has included evaluation-related articles over the years, focusing initially on groups’ decision-making processes and the impact of facilitators on group process (e.g., Shaw et al., 2010). In a recent issue, the Journal includes a more extensive article on facilitation interventions, outlining concepts on which to base evaluation, but without the detail to provide a comprehensive framework (Lichtenberg & London, 2008). Beyond the Group Facilitation journal, it is not easy to find published work about the evaluation of facilitation. As group facilitators, we believe in the inherent value of the individual and the collective wisdom of the group. We strive to help the group make the best use of the contributions of each of its members. We set aside our personal opinions and support the group's right to make its own choices. We believe that collaborative and cooperative interaction builds consensus and produces meaningful outcomes. We value professional collaboration to improve our profession. To add to the confusion, the role that a facilitator plays has been likened to the conductor of an orchestra (Spencer, 1989, cited in Hogan, 2002); a catalyst, chameleon, and cabdriver (Priest, Gass, & Gillis, 2000); midwives (Hogan, 2002); a choreographer (Hunter, Bailey, & Taylor, 1995); and a change agent (Robson & Beary, 1995). We can't agree more. We found that some authors contributing to this issue use a definition similar to Merriam-Webster's, but many had more nuanced versions when they considered their practices. We asked the authors to include a definition in their chapters to help us understand the theoretical perspectives from which they were working and to expand our thinking about what facilitation means. As we began to explore our topic, we also saw that defining the skills of a facilitator, specifically those used in evaluation, was not so straightforward. “Facilitating constructive interpersonal interaction (teamwork, group facilitation, and processing)” is among the evaluator competencies identified in the AJE article, “Establishing Essential Competencies for Program Evaluators” (Stevahn, King, Ghere, & Minnema, 2005). Yet, detailed information on what actions or activities are a part of sound practice are not readily available, nor are facilitation techniques covered in any depth in most university curricula for evaluators. We may look to the IAF, which has identified knowledge, skills, and behaviors within its Core Facilitator Competencies and bases its certification process on them (www.iaf-world.org/Libraries/Certification_documents/Competencies.sflb.ashx). Authors contributing to this issue represent both the evaluation and facilitation fields. Their practices span a range from sole practitioners and independent consulting firms to larger academic settings, with work ranging from single program–based projects to large-scale research and a broad variety of topics and clients. They describe grounding concepts that inform their work. They address culture, power, diversity, and inclusion and how they play out in group interaction. They talk about making choices on the methods to use depending on the client, context, and priorities of the work, as well as the practitioner's skill, confidence, and philosophy. “MĀRAMATANGA (Enlightenment): A Creative Approach to Connecting Facilitation and Evaluation,” by Kataraina Pipi, an independent evaluator, talks about her entry into evaluation and the development of the “by Māori, for Māori” evaluation community and evaluation approaches. She provides an example of Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH) and shares an exercise she developed to support critical reflection, affirmation, and validation and describes how it could be used in personal planning, strategic planning, and evaluation. The second section of the issue focuses on the application of facilitation within evaluation, outlining specific steps in the process, strategies, and methods. “Data Placemats: A Facilitative Technique Designed to Enhance Stakeholder Understanding of Data,” by Veena Pankaj and Ann K. Emery of the Innovation Network, shares a visual tool called data placemats, used as a facilitative technique in the analysis stage of evaluation as a means to enhance stakeholder understanding of evaluation data. The chapter shows when, why, and how to use data placemats and explores the connection between effective facilitation and implementation of this technique. It provides some sample data placemats, practical steps for evaluators in preparing for, facilitating, and following up on sessions using them, and examples of adapting the practice to different types of evaluations. The third section of the issue includes two chapters on the evaluation of facilitation—the first a proposed approach, the second a completed one. In our conversations with authors throughout the process of developing this issue, we were aware of how much more there is to discuss, how much more we need to learn, and how much more we want to explore. Cataloging facilitation methods most useful at different steps in the evaluation process may be one avenue to pursue. Codifying facilitation competencies specific to evaluation is another. Perhaps most evident is the need to focus greater attention on the evaluation of facilitation and whether or how it benefits our work and our clients. By becoming more skillful facilitators, evaluators can learn to sense, hear, and recognize both the dynamics in the room and the common threads among the perspectives and voices present. We can model productive, meaningful, and action-driven decision-making and evaluation processes. The most widely recognized resource for facilitation training is the IAF, serving as a repository for courses and workshops in its training directory. Yet many of the contributing authors shared that the ability to sense, listen deeply, capture group-generated information, reflect, and move groups toward action are more often learned through exposure to others’ experiences. We hope this issue helps serve this purpose and expands the discussion, literature, and teaching around the connections between evaluation and facilitation. To help make sense of the various methods and perspectives, the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) created an “Engagement Streams Framework” that shows the differences among and pertinence of multiple facilitation methods (http://www.ncdd.org/files/rc/2014_Engagement_Streams_Guide_Print.pdf). We encourage evaluators to explore these resources and challenge our peers to experiment—to take some risks in trying new things. We believe this issue will address the needs of experienced evaluators who feel the need for more reflection and skill building in facilitation and the needs of facilitators who are looking for evaluation frameworks that suit their work. We hope to expand the conversation about how these two practices affect each other by building the scholarship bridge between them. We aim to propel evaluation and facilitation forward by deepening reflection about each of them. Rita S. Fierro, PhD, is the founder of Fierro Consulting, LLC, a firm working for national and international organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and innovative businesses in North America, Europe, New Zealand, and Africa that uses facilitation, evaluation, and research to help inspire individuals, groups, and communities to thrive in excellence while they pursue their goals together. Alissa Schwartz, MSW, PhD, is an independent organizational consultant with a practice in participatory facilitation, program evaluation, leadership development, and strategy planning. You can learn more about her work from her website: www.solidfireconsulting.com. Dawn Hanson Smart is an independent consultant focused on collaboration and participatory work in evaluation, strategic planning, organizational development and capacity-building with nonprofits, foundations, and local and state government.