Original Research

The inclusive, manumit, practice-based, accessible, community-focused and timely framework

Sharon Attipoe-Dorcoo, Norma Martínez-Rubin

Received: 02 Feb. 2024; Accepted: 07 Apr. 2024; Published: 20 June 2024

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: This article highlights how the Inclusive, Manumit, Practice-based, Accessible, Community-focused and Timely (I.M.P.A.C.T.) framework, a practical evaluation tool grounded in indigenous and culturally responsive and equitable evaluation (CREE) practices, can help expand the narrative from Made in Africa to Africa-led evaluation.

Objectives: When building decolonised evaluation methods that are Africa-led, it is imperative that there be practical tools for evaluators. The authors describe their personal and professional influences on evaluation practice and contend that evaluation that fails to account for people’s lived experiences often fails to produce solutions with sustainable, positive impacts.

Method: The I.M.P.A.C.T. framework, created by the authors and briefly outlined, is meant for use to advance CREE among multicultural, under-resourced communities.

Results: The framework can help illuminate the multifaceted contexts of various countries represented in community-oriented work.

Conclusion: Evaluators may apply it when planning, designing or implementing evaluations.

Contribution: Furthermore, the simplicity of the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework encourages evaluators to keep in mind what socio-cultural dimensions to consider in advance of and while carrying out an evaluation.

Keywords: indigeneity; I.M.P.A.C.T., framework; evaluation; CREE; Africa-led; multicultural.

Introduction

The authors of this article are individually deeply connected to their Ghanaian and Mexican ancestral roots, have lived experiences as foreign-born and first-generation ‘Americans’ and are formally trained in the United States (US). Sharon, one of the co-authors, was born in Ghana and identifies as a Ghanaian American in the diaspora. She was raised by her grandmother with an Indigenous Ewe upbringing. In recognition of the rich West African heritage she is nurtured in, this article begins with an Oríkì, praise poetry with roots in the traditions of the Yoruba people of Nigeria:

Community
The flows of humanity and connection
Culture
Linkages to land and peoples
Context
History and time intertwines stories
Power
I experience, embody, manifest
Community, Culture, Context, Power

Norma, the second co-author, has a love for written and oral expression. That ardent affinity originates from childhood experiences as a first-generation Californian reared by monolingual Spanish-speaking immigrant parents. Her father instilled pride in ancestral roots at a time when bilingualism was not favoured in the US public school system. Her mother’s tenacity to ensure all siblings completed their formal education as a means for economic advancement inspired a career to improve community health, disease prevention and health promotion for Latine immigrants and other under-resourced populations. Norma’s upbringing has heightened her professional reach as a bilingual and/or Mexican American evaluator. With measured optimism, she remains cognisant of the strides yet to be taken before equity is realised across multicultural divides.

This article highlights how a practical evaluation tool, the Inclusive, Manumit, Practice-based, Accessible, Community-focused and Timely (I.M.P.A.C.T.) framework, grounded in indigenous and culturally responsive and equitable evaluation (CREE) practices can help expand the narrative from Made in Africa to Africa-led evaluation by accounting for lived experiences. To orient readers, we present a definition of CREE to which we subscribe:

Culturally responsive and equitable evaluation requires the integration of diversity, inclusion, and equity in all phases of evaluation. CREE incorporates cultural, structural, and contextual factors (e.g. historical, social, economic, racial, ethnic, gender) using a participatory process that shifts power to individuals most impacted. CREE is not just one method of evaluation; it is an approach that should be infused into all evaluation methodologies. CREE advances equity by informing strategy, program improvement, decision-making, policy formation, and change. (Expanding the Bench n.d.)

Intersection of indigeneity and culturally responsive and equitable evaluation for Africa-led evaluation

Our own evaluation practices are derived from pride in Ghanaian and Mexican ancestral roots, lived experiences as foreign-born and first-generation ‘Americans’, formal training in the US and ongoing interest in evaluation to enhance the quality of life for under-resourced racially and ethnically diverse communities.

We highlight our personal connections in the introduction as an important element of our identity and lived experiences. A sense of identity unlocks the collective cultural intersectional facets of what connects our shared humanity. As CREE practitioners, we ponder over this quote in Hood’s classical writing (1998):

I do believe that some of us already hope and feel that we have been conducting such evaluations. However, I wonder whether we have aggressively sought to refine the methods we use in planning, collecting evaluative information, analyzing, interpreting, and making recommendations while conducting an evaluation that is truly culturally responsive. (p. 121)

We posit that identity in the field of evaluation has evolved over time with generational variations in defining what identity means both at individual and community levels. This plays a role in people’s sense of belonging and evaluators need to acknowledge this tenet of the field. In the context of Africa-led evaluation, the African Commission (2005) has set out criteria for defining the identity of indigenous people in the African context. These criteria are:

1. The occupation and use of the African territory

2. The voluntary perpetuation of African cultural distinctiveness, which may include the aspects of language, social organisation, religion and spiritual values, modes of production, laws and institutions

3. Self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups, as a distinct collectivity

4. An experience of subjugation, marginalisation, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination (African Commission 2005).

Historically, Africa has faced challenges with evaluations resulting from imported knowledge and practices from places such as Britain and France. Although most African states that were colonised gained independence between the 1960s and 1980s, the influence of colonialism continued because of the economic and political reliance of these states on former colonial rulers (Cloete 2016). Little attention is given to African indigenous literary and philosophical traditions because they are viewed as primitive and unscientific (Kaya 2013). These ideologies are, however, baked in colonial thinking that still impact evaluation in Africa (Masvaure & Motlanthe 2022). Chilisa and Malunga (2012) both assert that for Made in Africa evaluation to be rooted in decolonisation and indigenisation, which is grounded in the) Ubuntu (community and the essence of being human), five critical elements need to be embraced:

1. Critically assessing the history of the evaluation approaches in a given context

2. Critiquing projects from a community’s perspective

3. Developing community-owned standards that are integrated into project standards

4. Combining indigenous methods with other methods

5. Disseminating evaluation outcomes that are inclusive of community dissemination approaches.

Hopson, Kirkhart and Bledsoe (2012) also discussed evaluators using evaluation approaches rooted in decolonisation and indigenisation. Although CREE is not new, its concepts have been applied more broadly in the evaluation fields in the US and Brazil, for example, recently (Hood, Hopson & Kirkhart 2015). Kirkhart argues that evaluators must reflect on both knowledge and politics of knowledge construction because these fundamentals allow for the creation and understanding of the evaluation within a given cultural context to inform standards, validity and methods in the evaluation process.

The CREE mindset can be illustrated with the image of a pomegranate inside a calabash bowl that is used in African countries and communities for drinking and gestures of welcome, engagement and inclusiveness – all fundamental to CREE (Attipoe-Dorcoo & Martínez-Rubin 2020). These critical concepts of engagement and inclusiveness ensure that the evaluators cultivate a mindset where the voices of individuals with lived experience are considered integral parts of evaluation work and inform our way of knowing or indigenous wisdom. We strive to leave behind a re-imagined way of operating or doing business so communities can avail themselves of services and community resources designed for them in ways that are respectful of cultural differences and nuances. This added layer of inclusivity creates opportunities for communities to see themselves in the work and co-lead with us.

For evaluators in the public sector, the consequent and concurrent rise of concern for equity and inclusion across racial and ethnic communities in which we practice has provided opportunities to further the discourse previously had about disparities in health, education, justice and energy services (Brosemer et al. 2020). The opportunities have included collegial discussions about intersectionality and implicit biases, gaps in economic advancement among Black, Latine and Native-American evaluators relative to our white counterparts, as well as the ongoing need for mentorship and professional pipelines for inclusion in the resource pools from which private, philanthropic and public commissioners of evaluation may find culturally responsive evaluators.

Against this professional environment as a backdrop, Black, Latine and Native American evaluators have called for, and written about approaches to evaluation that resonate with each other despite varied ancestral backgrounds that have influenced evaluation practice (Attipoe-Dorcoo & Martínez-Rubin 2024). These approaches, based on CREE principles (culture, response, equity and evaluation, Figure 1), give resounding acknowledgement to the uniqueness and value of racial and ethnic cultures. Culturally responsive and equitable evaluation-oriented evaluation highlights the necessity for the evaluation field to modify and reframe long-established and Western-based evaluation designs, which have treated evaluation study participants primarily as external information sources to be observed, studied and examined. Culturally responsive and equitable evaluation orientations to evaluation instead give high regard to study participants’ dissimilar and extraordinary life circumstances and accept that those circumstances, rather than the evaluation, would be of prime concern to those study participants. As critical thinkers, we espouse collective action towards addressing systemic oppression, be that in the US or international settings. For example, Evolving Evaluation is a 2-year research effort by Expanding the Bench^®, an initiative committed to diversifying evaluation and elevating CREE. This research study engaged evaluators in critical reflections on their own journeys, stories and experiences with evaluation in their practice of CREE. Among the study findings were: ‘Evaluators of color blend their lived experiences of racial oppression with self-reflection around other intersections and privileges’. The study also found: ‘For evaluation practice to advance, evaluators have had to unlearn what they were taught and dismantle early evaluation teachings around concepts of objectivity, validity, and rigor’ (Silva et al. 2023). These diverse evaluators include those with connections to Africa, either as African-born, have ancestry to the continent or currently have established evaluation practices in the African diaspora, and see the need for contextual Africa-led evaluations that intersect indigeneity and CREE.

FIGURE 1: Culturally responsive and equitable evaluation principles.

Further, a CREE orientation to evaluation practice also bears in mind dissimilar levels of relational power among evaluator and evaluation participants. Thus, the CREE-oriented evaluator intentionally designs evaluation studies with opportunities to identify how power manifests in conversations and other interactions that influence the direction of evaluation studies consequential to study participants’ lives. Of note, are the results of a qualitative study of Black evaluators: salient identities most frequently mentioned as contributing to their identity include race, childhood socioeconomic status, gender identity and age. In the same study, ‘all evaluators acknowledged identity as foundational and present when practicing evaluation’ (Boyce et al. 2023).

Inclusive, manumit, practice-based, accessible, community-focused and timely framework

Evaluation that fails to account for people’s lived experiences often fails to produce solutions with sustainable, positive impacts for the involved communities. We developed the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework (Attipoe-Dorcoo & Martínez-Rubin 2024), as an evaluation practice tool that centres the culture and principles of CREE. Similar to other practical tools for evaluation in Africa such as the Nnoboa and Sankofa frameworks (Asante & Archibald 2023), the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework (Figure 2) is not rooted in a Eurocentric ontology and epistemology.

FIGURE 2: Inclusive, manumit, practice-based, accessible, community-focused and timely framework.

This framework also embraces an interdisciplinary approach to inform evaluation work in service to communities. We believe it can help illuminate the multifaceted contexts of various countries represented in community-oriented work. Further, the nuances that each community inhabits become additional tools among the plethora of capacity-building ones within a continent. Each of the components is described in this section with a short introduction and guiding questions that evaluators can use in practice.

Inclusive

Decisions about members of the community to engage with in the evaluation process should honor the wholeness of a community geographically, culturally, historically, as well as the ways of being that drive the way the community perceives life and how the members give value to their own experiences. Some questions evaluators can reflect on are:

• For whom am I working?
• How do community members engage in defining the ‘problem’ from a strength-based perspective to attain equitable and culturally derived solutions?

Manumit

Examining the relevancy of our work in real time, evaluators apply the concept of manumit when they rethink what they know about communities and societal issues. Contexts matter in evaluation practice, therefore, a systems approach of engaging the community in dialogue to examine solutions is critical. Questions to consider are:

• What is important for the community to see, receive, accept and believe about the evaluation?
• What typically motivates community members to seek support and/or involvement with persons outside their community?

Practice-based

Interrogating the assumptions of the evaluation commissioner and/or funding entity around the need for an evaluation, feedback about these assumptions from community members and program staff can inform the community’s interest in participation and the utility of findings. Reflection questions are:

• Are the voices of community members informing the benefit(s) of the evaluation?
• Is the evaluator open to professional and personal growth and reflective about the evaluation in practice?

Accessible

Accounting for the people and honoring their wholeness throughout the evaluation cycle, evaluators can work with communities to ensure the evaluation processes include the people and their various ways of ordinarily congregating, socialising, learning, communicating and participating in activities. Additionally, consideration for inclusivity of people irrespective of their physical abilities or literacy comprehension is critical. Questions to consider are:

• How do we keep from misusing resources that only address symptoms, rather than root causes of a problem?
• How do we avoid perpetuating harm and ensure processes include the ‘people’?

Community-focused

Assessing the extent to which the evaluation includes proportional representation of community members based on predetermined variables (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics or affiliations) and ensuring methodological rigor is aligned with community needs and perspectives. The possible reflection questions are:

• How does continuously learning about the communities we work with play a role in our work?
• How does our sense of being result in how we relate to and see the community and, consequently, the world and the vulnerabilities or restraints that may influence the evaluation work?

Timely

Through timing planning and implementation appropriately, evaluators should strive to work on pace with the community’s readiness and recognise that the sense of ‘urgency’ of the evaluation will likely be cause for much-needed discussion between and among community members. The evaluator’s timelines may be based on contractual arrangements, but the community’s timing may be based on preferences for something other than the evaluation. Reflection questions are:

• Does the evaluation approach highlight particular cultural subgroups at times socially marginalised or not ordinarily involved in decision-making?
• What is the impact of findings on policies impacting people’s lives?

When building decolonised evaluation methods for the African context, it is imperative for practical tools added to the toolkits for evaluators. Especially since recent scholars from the Global South with perspectives about equitable evaluation on the African continent suggest evaluators consider the fact that in our changing world, there might be a need to mix both Western and African cultural elements (Masvaure et al. 2023). We believe I.M.P.A.C.T., with its grounding principles in CREE and indigenous ways of knowing, its openness to the multifaceted contexts of various countries and the nuances that each of those communities inhabits, is an additional tool to consider for evaluation capacity-building tools.

As CREE-oriented practitioners, we recommend using the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework as a guiding tool that fosters a mindset of reflection about the contextual appropriateness of evaluation. The framework can be applied when planning, designing or implementing evaluations. Furthermore, the simplicity of the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework encourages evaluators to keep in mind what socio-cultural dimensions to consider in advance of and while carrying out an evaluation. Such forethought and awareness potentially help advance community priorities.

We posit that as the evaluation field shifts to more contextually derived work, we also need to account for language that expands the Made in Africa evaluation to Africa-led evaluation. We recommend the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework as a guiding tool for this expansion to foster a mindset of reflection about the contextual appropriateness of evaluation because it creates a system of checks and balances for the evaluator to hold communities’ concerns a priori to methodological approaches.

Inclusive, manumit, practice-based, accessible, community-focused and timely framework alignment with expanding made in Africa to Africa-led evaluation

The I.M.P.A.C.T. framework advocates for and promotes regard for a community-oriented way of doing, learning and discovering as an alternative to a business-oriented approach of evaluation that is carried out for maximum efficiency and accountability to those who commission an evaluation. This section highlights how the framework can be adapted to illustrate the intersection of indigeneity and CREE towards an Africa-led evaluation.

Critically assessing the history of the evaluation approaches in a given context

As a mnemonic device, the framework elements reiterate the importance of evaluators asking basic questions to begin an evaluation design process, identify the appropriate unit(s) of measure in the evaluation study and determine the best duration of the evaluation relative to the length of time the program or initiative being evaluated has existed. For example: What is ‘impact’? Who determines what that ‘impact’ is? At what point(s) of a community’s engagement with what is being evaluated should the evaluation occur?

Critical assessment would include seeking answers to these initial questions from community members to inform processes to be coordinated with community members’ ordinary life activities. For example, discussions about the purpose of an evaluation in a community meeting space may require planning multiple gatherings with sufficient advance notice and different meeting time options to attract adults whose daytime occupations or locations are distant from the meeting space. Here, efficient meeting facilitation would keep in mind whether the participants the evaluator wishes to draw to the study (i.e. recruited) will be provided with a sufficiently attractive participation incentive that counters the prospective participants’ greater desire to remain uninvolved. Here too, attractive incentives would be defined by community members. Furthermore, beyond the initial engagement of participants, the ongoing interaction with them as partners rather than ‘human study subjects’ in the evaluation means their time, input and feedback are valued as information exchanges with the evaluators. This would be made clear when the evaluation team provides a jargon-free explanation of when and how the input (i.e. data) collected by community members and/or from them are to be analysed, interpreted and presented for sense-making and vetting before recommendations are determined.

Critiquing projects from a community’s perspective

Letting go of preconceived notions about the merits of a program or initiative to be evaluated requires open and honest communication. Evaluation commissioners rely on the reporting back of data that will be validated through some agreed-upon acceptable and professionally ethical manner. Furthermore, the evaluator(s) risk their professional rather than personal reputation. On the other hand, community members engaged in an evaluation conceivably have a larger stake when disclosing personal opinions or sensitive information about themselves or as representatives of their community. Evaluators’ risk of presenting unfavorable study findings is generally understood as a possible outcome of the evaluation process. Honest input from community members relies on their perception of risk in divulging such information. Evaluators must consider how often and in what manner community members have been given opportunities to present their opinions without fear of repercussions that is banishment or shunning by community members who subscribe to certain ideologies.

In communities whose members have a long-standing tradition of civic involvement and public engagement, the stakes will be of a different degree depending on the felt risk of loss of personal reputation or social status among peers. Community members may feel a higher degree of risk than do evaluators when their opinions about program operations are sought; people may be hesitant to readily present a counterpoint to majority-held beliefs or values for fear of loss of the program under evaluation. In practice, we find that the creation of safe meeting spaces, options for anonymous submittal of information, safeguarding confidentiality of participants’ personal information and transparency about the specific use of evaluation study findings facilitate honest critiquing of projects from a community’s perspective. For example, a workshop attendee reported the use of the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework among Black and Indigenous youth in a large urban city in the US that experienced a population loss of 50 000 between 2018 and 2020 largely attributed to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The evaluation work called for resident input to inform a youth action plan with their ideas and solutions to problems affecting their future. This evaluator used the framework as a tool for the engagement of the youth and further planned to report the results of that process locally for capacity building of small non-profits (N. De Sole, Pers Comm., 08 September 2023).

Developing community-owned standards integrated into project standards

To the extent that an evaluation is designed in phases that include plenty of opportunities for iterative discussion between the evaluators and the study participants, the development of community-owned standards may surface with sufficient clarity to be documented, vetted and approved as such by the community participants. The integration of those standards into a project is informed by those agreements and articulated as recommendations by the evaluation team to the evaluation commissioner. The role of the evaluator as a community advocate is a matter of reflection and action among CREE-oriented evaluators. What actions to take beyond being culturally responsive in the evaluation work is fluid and context dependent.

Since 2020, the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework has been presented as a professional development tool through interactive workshops and webinars. Audiences have included evaluation administrators and practitioners affiliated with the American Evaluation Association through topical interest groups, local affiliates and an online e-study. Though audiences have ranged in level of evaluation experience, coming up to speed on the integration of concepts of racial diversity, equity and inclusion along with CREE principles and the use of practical tools such as the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework is a recent content area across a range of years of practical experience in evaluation. Interest in the integration of CREE exists where evaluation staff champion it in their organisations, and there is a possibility for further dissemination through their work with community groups.

An example of the framework’s utility is for organisational process change. The Program Performance and Evaluation Office (PPEO) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invited the authors to present the framework to a multidisciplinary audience. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s PPEO promotes continuous program improvement to achieve the greatest possible health impact through evidence-based public health. We designed a two-part workshop in which 333 CDC staff participated to examine what being ‘culturally responsive’ and ‘equitable’ are in evaluation practice. The workshops, held in the fall of 2022 and in the spring of 2023, briefly reviewed scholarly work on CREE and the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework we originated. Each I.M.P.A.C.T. component encouraged the participants to reflect on how to apply a CREE mindset for evaluative purposes. Emphasis was on facilitating participant discussion to increase awareness of how cultural sensitivity and responsiveness are applicable through community engagement, recognise professional and personal limitations and identify how to proceed in ever-changing atmospheres. The learning objectives were: (1) to recognise how cultural responsiveness and social equity can be integral in evaluation planning and design; (2) to use the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework as a community focused and culturally centered evaluation practice tool that informs CDC’s evaluation partners’ practice and (3) to identify how the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework is applicable to CDC’s monitoring and evaluation processes, so program performance and evaluation metrics are culturally responsive and reflect progress on the attainment of long-term program outcomes.

The workshop learning objectives exemplify a gradual introduction of CREE to attempt its integration into a professional community’s standard way of operating. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff members ordinarily interact with federal grantees at community-based organisations and local agencies in a grantor or grantee dynamic. The I.M.P.A.C.T. framework’s element of manumitted evaluation introduced and reinforced the necessary adoption of community-based perspectives into future oversight and technical assistance as would be provided by CDC and/or PPEO staff for culturally responsive calls for project proposals pending institutional revisions.

Combining inclusive, manumit, practice-based, accessible, community-focused and timely with existing frameworks

To date, the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework has been introduced to the field of evaluation via published work referenced in this article. Our expectation is that both evaluation students and seasoned evaluators find value in its simplicity and consider it flexible to apply in creative ways while adhering to the CREE principles that are fundamental. The framework is among the options available to practitioners seeking to blend what they know in theory about working in a community through a culturally responsive lens specific to evaluation. Specifically in the context of Africa, we also hope evaluators will see this as an additional practical tool to make progress from Made in Africa to Africa-led evaluation. As is the case with community-oriented work and the socio-political contexts in which evaluations are undertaken, we believe the framework is sufficiently flexible to accommodate ever-changing dynamics and cultural shifts.

Disseminating evaluation outcomes inclusive of community dissemination approaches

As evaluation practitioners, we are witness to communities not having been invited to contribute their opinions at the metaphorical discussion table of decision-makers or, when invited, not engaged as equal contributors. We have also witnessed the demise of print media and the ever-increasing digital dissemination of information to worldwide audiences. Technological advancement has enabled that. However, remote, rural and under-resourced urban communities with non-existent or inadequate communication infrastructure are potentially neglected or excluded from discussion tables that would otherwise bring relevant news to their midst. Therefore, the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework advocates inclusivity through the use of multiple traditional and current communication channels, the use of appropriate literacy levels and adaptation from academic to colloquial expressions of evaluation findings and evidence of programmatic outcomes.

Conclusion

Forethought and awareness of indigenous self-identity, CREE, use of power and how we inspire knowledge gain in our evaluations can potentially help advance community priorities. This is why we propose the I.M.P.A.C.T. framework be adapted to expand the narrative from Made in Africa to Africa-led evaluation by accounting for lived experiences. After all, evaluation is consequential, and evaluators can facilitate breaking through singular definitions of value. In the context of Africa, evaluation must be part of solutions both on the continent and the world. It is time for insights from the continent to complement and enrich evaluation theory and practice, (AfrEA 2020) and not only should they be made on the continent but be led by Africans.

As aforementioned, we strongly believe that evaluation needs to account for people’s lived experiences for sustainable and positive impacts. Therefore, evaluators of African descent on the continent and in the diaspora need to be at the helm of developing the contextualised definitions of value that embrace the complex makeup of Africa. The I.M.P.A.C.T. framework is not rooted in a Eurocentric ontology and epistemology and therefore can complement the existing practical evaluation capacity to ensure these solutions work for Africa and potentially inform work in other parts of the world. Omosa and Archibald (2021) present three areas that the field of evaluation on the continent can continue to grow, which are highlighted here:

• Capacity building: African evaluators need to be grounded in both technical competencies and African philosophies such as collectivism. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the gaps between the individualist approach to public health in the US and the federal government’s approach to solutions. Therefore, there is great potential for African philosophies such as collectivism to inform sustainable systems of health design both in Africa and the world.
• Evaluation practice: The African Evaluation Association can influence evaluation practice by ensuring that people who apply to be members of the association ‘demonstrate competence in reflective, situational management, and interpersonal practices’. These practices increase capacity in reflexivity skills.
• Research on evaluation: Localised methods and approaches to evaluation in Africa are necessary where concepts such as storytelling can provide different perspectives to the practice of evaluation.

With continuous efforts to dismantle the colonial thinking that evaluation in Africa is still plagued with (Masvaure & Motlanthe 2022), we are recommending evaluation capacity building practical tools such as I.M.P.A.C.T. to complement existing frameworks on the continent so evaluators continue to work on sustainable solutions for the continent and beyond.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge their ancestral roots and lands upon which they inhabit for their work.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

S.A.-D and N.M.-R. contributed equally to this research article.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References