Evaluation is not only a technical exercise of measuring results, but also a process of assigning meaning, significance and value to programmes, policies and interventions. Schwandt and Gates (2021) argue that evaluation is fundamentally concerned with valuing: making reasoned judgements about merit, worth and significance. Similarly, Norris (2015:135) defines evaluation as ‘the process of conceiving, obtaining and communicating information for the guidance of decision-making’. Both perspectives emphasise that evaluation is a purposive and interpretive practice. It produces knowledge in order to guide action.

This understanding matters because judgements about value are never culturally neutral. Evaluators must decide what counts as evidence, whose criteria matter, whose experience is credible and which forms of knowledge should guide judgement. These decisions are shaped by ethical, cultural and political contexts. Evaluation therefore requires more than technical competence; it requires attention to meaning, context, power and participation.

Democratic and participatory evaluation traditions have long argued that stakeholders should be involved in deliberating about programme merit and worth (Greene 2005; House & Howe 2000). This opens conceptual space for culturally grounded evaluation approaches that recognise local meanings, lived experience and community-based criteria of value. For this reason, a methodology such as ELO begins from the assumption that evaluation theory and practice can be enriched when local wisdom is treated as a legitimate source of evaluative reasoning.

Indigenous knowledge systems have often been marginalised by dominant epistemological traditions, yet they constitute complex and dynamic ways of understanding the world. Such knowledge is built through lived experience, communal memory, practical engagement, oral transmission and relational responsibility (Berkes 2008; Chilisa 2012). Rather than separating knowledge from ethics and social life, many indigenous knowledge systems understand knowing as embedded in relationships among people, communities, ancestors, land and the wider moral order.

African philosophical traditions similarly emphasise relationality, communal responsibility and the ethical formation of personhood. Concepts associated with Ubuntu and African communitarian thought express the idea that persons become fully human through relationships, responsibility and participation in the life of the community (Gyekye 1997; Mbiti 1969; Wiredu 1995). These traditions are directly relevant to evaluation because evaluation is itself a social practice involving inquiry, judgement, accountability and learning.

The MAE movement builds on this intellectual foundation by calling for evaluation approaches rooted in African values, philosophies and knowledge systems (AfrEA 2007; Chilisa et al. 2016). Made in Africa Evaluation challenges evaluators to move beyond merely adapting external models to African contexts and instead to generate evaluation theories and practices from African epistemologies themselves. However, affirming the value of indigenous knowledge is not enough. The central methodological challenge is how to translate such knowledge into coherent evaluation philosophies, principles and approaches without reducing it to illustration or symbolism. This challenge provides the immediate rationale for ELO.

African proverbs are among the most important carriers of indigenous knowledge. They condense social experience, moral reflection and practical reasoning into memorable forms. Mieder (1993:5) describes proverbs as containing ‘wisdom, truth, morals, and traditional views’ on specific issues. In African philosophical traditions, proverbs have long served as tools for teaching, deliberation, ethical reflection and social judgement (Gyekye 1997; Wiredu 1995).

For evaluation, proverbs matter because they often encode assumptions about evidence, responsibility, causality, participation and judgement. For example, the Swahili proverb Dalili ya mvua ni mawingu [The sign of rain is clouds] expresses a logic of inference from observable indicators. Mlenga jiwe kundini hajui limpataye [One who throws a stone into a crowd does not know whom it hits] warns against careless judgement and unintended harm. Such proverbs are not merely decorative cultural sayings; they contain evaluative logics that can inform how people inquire, interpret evidence, assess responsibility and judge outcomes.

Easton’s (2012) work on West African proverbs demonstrates that African proverbial traditions contain evaluative impulses related to measurement, comparison, inquiry, accountability and stakeholder involvement. Building on this insight, Mazigo (2024) and Mazigo et al. (2024) show that Swahili proverbs can inform the development of culturally grounded evaluation meanings, purposes, philosophical beliefs and practical guidance. These studies established that proverbs can contribute to evaluation theory and practice. What remains less fully articulated is the methodological pathway through which evaluative insights are identified, interpreted and transformed into philosophical and practical evaluation guidance.

The preceding discussion points to a clear methodological need. If evaluation is a valuing and meaning-making practice, then it must attend to the cultural sources from which people derive meanings of value, evidence and responsibility. If indigenous knowledge systems are legitimate sources of theory and practice, then evaluators need rigorous ways of engaging them. If proverbs encode philosophical and evaluative reasoning, then they should not be used only as illustrative quotations; they should be analysed systematically as conceptual resources.

Therefore, proverbs are more than repositories of cultural wisdom. They encode ideas about how knowledge is generated, how reality is understood, what values should guide human action, and how inquiry and judgement ought to be conducted. Its primary contribution is methodological: it provides a replicable process for transforming proverbial wisdom into evaluation philosophy, principles, frameworks and approaches.

The ELO methodology provides a structured process for extracting evaluative and philosophical insights from indigenous proverbs, learning from their meanings through culturally grounded interpretation and orienting evaluation philosophy and practice around the resulting insights. In this sense, ELO does not simply argue that indigenous proverbs are valuable. That has already been demonstrated by earlier work. Its contribution is methodological: it makes explicit a replicable process through which proverbial wisdom can be transformed into evaluation philosophies, principles, frameworks and approaches. While the SEA provides an important example of what can be generated from Swahili proverbial wisdom, ELO explains how such generation can be undertaken systematically and adapted to other proverbial traditions.

The ELO methodology emerged through methodological reflection on the process that led to the development of the SEA. The development of SEA involved identifying evaluative insights embedded in Swahili proverbs, interpreting their meanings and philosophical implications and translating those insights into a culturally grounded evaluation approach. Through this process, it became apparent that a recurring methodological logic underpinned the movement from indigenous wisdom to evaluation theory and practice.

The ELO methodology was developed to address this gap. Rather than constituting an evaluation approach in its own right, ELO is a methodology for generating evaluation philosophies, principles, frameworks and approaches from indigenous proverbial knowledge and related wisdom traditions. It provides a structured process through which evaluators can identify culturally grounded evaluative insights, interpret their meanings and translate them into evaluation theory and practice.

Although developed from Swahili proverbs, the ELO methodology is transferable to other African and indigenous knowledge traditions. It provides a systematic process for generating culturally grounded evaluation philosophies, frameworks and approaches from indigenous wisdom. In this sense, the SEA represents one application of the methodology, while ELO provides the methodological pathway for developing comparable approaches across diverse cultural contexts.

Figure 1 summarises the overall logic of the ELO methodology. The process begins with indigenous proverbs and proceeds through three interconnected phases. The Extract phase identifies proverbs with evaluative and philosophical significance. The Learn phase interprets and analyses their meanings to uncover embedded evaluative wisdom and philosophical assumptions. The Orient phase synthesises these insights into coherent evaluation philosophies, principles, frameworks and approaches. Together, these phases provide a systematic pathway for transforming indigenous wisdom into evaluation knowledge.

The corpus used to illustrate the application of the ELO methodology was derived from the process that informed the development of the SEA. An initial pool of approximately 250 Swahili proverbs was assembled through documentary review, consultation with Swahili language and literature experts, educational materials, digital repositories and community-based sources. The objective was to identify proverbs with the potential to illuminate indigenous understandings of inquiry, learning, evidence, accountability, participation, judgement and social responsibility. To ensure methodological rigour and cultural legitimacy, the initial corpus was subjected to a systematic screening process guided by three interrelated criteria.

Firstly, proverbs were assessed for cultural legitimacy. Priority was given to proverbs that were widely recognised within Swahili-speaking communities and documented in established proverb collections, educational texts and cultural archives. Cultural legitimacy was further strengthened through consultation with Swahili scholars, practising evaluators and community members familiar with the meanings, contexts and contemporary use of the proverbs.

Secondly, proverbs were assessed for evaluative relevance. Proverbs were retained when they contained explicit or implicit insights relating to inquiry, learning, participation, evidence, accountability, judgement, ethics, decision-making, collective responsibility or other concerns central to evaluation theory and practice. The intention was not to identify proverbs about evaluation per se, but rather to identify those that embodied evaluative reasoning capable of informing evaluation philosophy and methodology.

Thirdly, proverbs were assessed for interpretive richness. Preference was given to proverbs whose meanings extended beyond literal instruction and offered opportunities for deeper philosophical reflection and evaluative interpretation. Particular attention was paid to metaphorical depth, conceptual density, contextual flexibility and the capacity of proverbs to generate insights concerning ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology.

The application of these criteria resulted in the selection of 45 proverbs that demonstrated clear evaluative and philosophical significance. These proverbs formed the analytical corpus through which evaluative insights and philosophical beliefs were subsequently derived.

To enhance transparency and provide an audit trail for the Extract phase, Online Appendix 1: Appendix A presents the illustrative corpus of selected proverbs, their thematic classification, English translations and evaluative significance. The Online Appendix 1: Appendix A also demonstrates how the corpus was organised into the three thematic domains that emerged during the extraction process: Participation and Collective Engagement; Knowledge, Learning and Inquiry; and Ethics, Judgement and Responsibility. Together, these proverbs constitute the foundational knowledge base from which the subsequent Learn and Orient phases of the ELO methodology were developed.

Because proverbs are context-dependent and often carry multiple layers of meaning, validation was treated as an essential component of corpus development. Interpretations were discussed with Swahili language experts, indigenous knowledge scholars, practising evaluators and community members familiar with the proverbs’ cultural contexts. This process helped confirm linguistic accuracy, contextual appropriateness and cultural legitimacy, while reducing the risk of decontextualised interpretation.

Consistent with indigenous research methodologies (Chilisa 2012), validation was approached as a relational and collective process rather than a purely technical exercise. The objective was not to establish a single authoritative meaning for each proverb but to ensure that interpretations remained grounded within recognised cultural understandings while preserving the plurality of meanings that characterises proverbial discourse.

Following corpus development and validation, the selected proverbs underwent an inductive thematic analysis to identify recurring evaluative concerns and philosophical significance. The purpose of this step was not simply to organise the corpus, but to reveal patterns of indigenous reasoning that could inform evaluation theory and practice.

Thematic categorisation drew on principles of qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2014) and involved repeated reading, comparison and clustering of proverbs according to their dominant evaluative orientation. Throughout this process, attention was given to both literal meanings and underlying social, ethical and philosophical messages.

Three broad thematic domains emerged consistently across the corpus. The first domain, Participation and Collective Engagement, encompasses proverbs concerned with cooperation, shared responsibility, collective decision-making and the role of multiple actors in social processes. For example, the proverb Pekee pekee hauwezi tunga historia (‘One person cannot write history alone’) highlights the importance of collective effort and multiple perspectives in understanding social reality. During categorisation, this proverb was interpreted as reflecting indigenous beliefs about collaboration, co-learning and shared knowledge creation, and it therefore was grouped within the participation domain. Similar proverbs emphasising cooperation and collective action reinforced the centrality of participation as a foundational element of social inquiry and decision-making.

The second domain, Knowledge, Learning and Inquiry, comprises proverbs that address questioning, observation, evidence, interpretation, learning and the development of understanding. A particularly illustrative example is Kuuliza si ujinga [Asking is not foolish], which explicitly encourages questioning as a legitimate pathway to knowledge. The proverb reflects an understanding that learning begins with curiosity, dialogue and the willingness to seek clarification. During analysis, it was interpreted as expressing an indigenous philosophy of inquiry in which knowledge is actively pursued through engagement and questioning, rather than passively received. A related proverb, Dalili ya mvua ni mawingu [The sign of rain is clouds], further reinforces this theme by emphasising the importance of observable indicators and inferential reasoning in understanding events and anticipating outcomes. Together, these proverbs highlight indigenous perspectives on learning, evidence and the generation of knowledge.

The third domain, Ethics, Judgement and Responsibility, includes proverbs that speak to accountability, fairness, humility, reflexivity, consequences and moral obligations in decision-making. Two proverbs proved particularly illustrative of this domain. Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt] reflects a strong ethic of accountability and obligation, suggesting that commitments create legitimate expectations that should be fulfilled. Similarly, Kitanda usichokilalia hujui kunguni wake [You do not know the bugs of a bed you have not slept on] emphasises humility in judgement and the importance of lived experience before making assessments about others. Together, these proverbs point to ethical responsibilities concerning accountability, credibility and respect for experiential knowledge.

These themes were not predetermined by existing evaluation frameworks but emerged through engagement with the proverbial corpus itself. At the same time, they resonate strongly with key dimensions of evaluation practice, including stakeholder engagement, inquiry, evidence generation, valuing and judgement. The emergence of these domains suggests that indigenous proverbial traditions contain not only cultural wisdom, but also structured ways of thinking about participation, learning, evidence, responsibility and social action.

The thematic domains identified during the Extract phase reveal important points of convergence between indigenous proverbial wisdom and foundational concerns within evaluation theory. Although originating from distinct cultural and historical traditions, both indigenous proverbs and contemporary evaluation practice grapple with questions of participation, knowledge generation, evidence, accountability, judgement and collective learning. The thematic analysis therefore did more than organise the proverbial corpus; it established a conceptual bridge between indigenous ways of knowing and evaluation thought. Table 1 summarises the tripartite thematic structure that emerged from the analysis and illustrates how indigenous evaluative concerns correspond to key dimensions of evaluation theory and practice.

The first thematic domain, Participation and Collective Engagement, resonates strongly with participatory and democratic evaluation traditions that emphasise stakeholder inclusion, dialogue and the co-production of knowledge (Greene 2005; House & Howe 2000; Mertens & Wilson 2019). The proverb Pekee pekee hauwezi tunga historia suggests that understanding emerges through collective effort and that no single individual possesses a complete account of social reality. Such reasoning aligns closely with evaluation approaches that value stakeholder participation, collective sense-making and shared ownership of evaluative processes.

The second domain, Knowledge, Learning and Inquiry, reflects concerns central to evaluation as a process of systematic inquiry and learning. Kuuliza si ujinga positions questioning as a legitimate and necessary pathway to knowledge, while Dalili ya mvua ni mawingu highlights the importance of evidence, indicators and inferential reasoning. Together, these proverbs express indigenous understandings of how knowledge is generated, validated and applied. Their underlying logic parallels the concern of evaluation with inquiry, evidence generation, interpretation and organisational learning (Norris 2015; Schwandt & Gates 2021).

The third domain, Ethics, Judgement and Responsibility, reflects concerns that lie at the heart of evaluation as a valuing practice. Ahadi ni deni foregrounds accountability by suggesting that commitments create obligations that should be fulfilled and assessed. In contrast, Kitanda usichokilalia hujui kunguni wake cautions against superficial judgement and highlights the importance of experiential knowledge when assessing people, programmes and situations. Together, these proverbs underscore the ethical dimensions of evaluation, including accountability, fairness, reflexivity, humility and respect for lived experience.

Importantly, the purpose of this analysis is not to force indigenous wisdom into pre-existing evaluation categories. Rather, it is to establish a dialogue between indigenous and contemporary evaluation thought. The thematic domains represent indigenous entry points into questions that evaluation theory has long sought to address, namely how knowledge is generated, how evidence is interpreted, how value is assigned and how judgements are made. In this sense, the Extract phase demonstrates that indigenous proverbs are not merely cultural artefacts; they constitute repositories of evaluative reasoning with direct relevance to evaluation philosophy and practice.

The thematic structure therefore serves as an analytical foundation for the subsequent phases of the ELO methodology. While the Extract phase identifies and organises evaluative concerns embedded within proverbs, it does not yet explain how these concerns generate evaluative insights and philosophical understandings. This task is undertaken in the Learn phase, where the meanings, assumptions and evaluative logics embedded within the proverbs are explored more deeply.

The Extract phase is not a mechanical process of collecting and classifying proverbs. Rather, it is an interpretive and relational process through which indigenous evaluative knowledge is identified, validated and organised for further analysis. Because proverbs are deeply embedded in language, culture, history and social practice, their meanings cannot be fully understood outside the contexts in which they are produced, transmitted and used. Consequently, the extraction of evaluative insights requires reflexivity, cultural sensitivity and methodological humility.

A central concern during extraction was the avoidance of decontextualisation. Proverbs often carry multiple layers of meaning that extend beyond their literal wording. Their significance is shaped by the circumstances in which they are invoked, the relationships among speakers and audiences and the broader cultural narratives to which they refer. For example, Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt] conveys more than a simple expectation of fulfilment; it reflects broader notions of trust, reciprocity, moral obligation and social accountability. Likewise, Kitanda usichokilalia hujui kunguni wake [You do not know the bugs of a bed you have not slept on] cautions against premature judgement, while simultaneously affirming the value of experiential knowledge. Such meanings emerge only through careful engagement with cultural context.

The Extract phase therefore embraced interpretive plurality. Rather than seeking a single definitive meaning for each proverb, the analysis recognised that proverbs often accommodate multiple yet complementary interpretations. Alternative readings were treated as opportunities for deeper learning and reflection, rather than as inconsistencies requiring resolution. This approach is consistent with hermeneutic traditions that view meaning as emerging through dialogue between text, context and interpreter (Gadamer 2004).

To strengthen cultural validity, interpretations were subjected to consultation and discussion with Swahili language experts, indigenous knowledge holders and practising evaluators. These engagements served several purposes: they helped verify linguistic meanings, clarified contextual usage and ensured that interpretations remained grounded in culturally recognised understandings. Consistent with indigenous research methodologies (Chilisa 2012), validation was approached as a collective and relational process rather than an exercise in external verification alone.

Through this process, the Extract phase produced more than a thematically organised corpus of proverbs. It generated a culturally validated body of indigenous evaluative knowledge organised around three broad domains: Participation and Collective Engagement; Knowledge, Learning and Inquiry; and Ethics, Judgement and Responsibility. These domains provide the analytical foundation upon which subsequent interpretation is built.

The outcome of extraction is therefore a structured and culturally grounded corpus that makes indigenous evaluative reasoning visible and available for further inquiry. Having identified and organised proverbs according to their dominant evaluative concerns, the next phase of ELO focuses on learning from them. The Learn phase moves beyond categorisation to explore the meanings, assumptions, evaluative logics and philosophical beliefs embedded within the proverbial corpus.

To support the Learn phase, the ELO methodology employs interpretive evaluation mapping (IEM), a culturally grounded hermeneutic approach that combines principles of qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2014), philosophical hermeneutics (Gadamer 2004) and interpretive evaluation theory (Schwandt & Gates 2021). Interpretive evaluation mapping provides a systematic process for engaging with proverbs as sources of evaluative and philosophical knowledge, enabling evaluators to move beyond surface meanings and uncover the deeper assumptions, values and forms of reasoning embedded within indigenous wisdom traditions.

The process begins by situating each proverb within its linguistic, cultural and social context. Because proverbs derive meaning from the communities that create and use them, understanding their historical, cultural and situational significance is a necessary starting point. Attention is then given to both literal and metaphorical meanings. While some proverbs communicate their lessons directly, others rely on symbolism, analogy and figurative language to convey more complex understandings of social life, responsibility and human relationships.

Building on this contextual and interpretive foundation, the analysis explores the evaluative concerns embedded within each proverb. This involves identifying how the proverb conceptualises learning, evidence, participation, accountability, judgement or other dimensions of evaluative practice. At this stage, proverbs are approached not merely as cultural expressions but as forms of indigenous theorising that offer insights into how people understand and assess the world around them.

The resulting insights are then placed in dialogue with established evaluation concepts and theories. The objective is not to subsume indigenous wisdom within existing evaluation frameworks, but rather to explore areas of convergence, divergence and mutual enrichment. This dialogical process allows indigenous perspectives to challenge, extend and refine conventional understandings of evaluation, while also illuminating points of connection with contemporary evaluation thought.

Finally, the insights generated through interpretation are mapped onto evaluation philosophy, methodology and practice. This involves considering how the evaluative wisdom embedded within proverbs might inform approaches to inquiry, stakeholder engagement, evidence generation, valuing, accountability, learning and decision-making. Through this process, indigenous knowledge is transformed from a cultural resource into a source of evaluative insight capable of informing theory and practice.

Therefore, IEM serves as the analytical engine of the Learn phase. It enables evaluators to engage systematically with indigenous wisdom while preserving cultural meaning and interpretive richness. Rather than fitting proverbs into pre-existing evaluation models, IEM creates a space where indigenous knowledge and evaluation theory can engage in meaningful dialogue, strengthening both in the process.

The operation of IEM can be illustrated through two proverbs drawn from different thematic domains identified during the Extract phase. The first example, Kuuliza si ujinga [Asking is not foolish], demonstrates how IEM generates insights related to knowledge, learning and inquiry. The second example, Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt], illustrates how the same process generates insights concerning accountability, responsibility and evaluative judgement. Together, these examples demonstrate the versatility of IEM and its capacity to generate evaluative insights across multiple domains of evaluation theory and practice. Detailed applications of IEM to these and other proverbs are provided in Online Appendix 1: Appendix B

Example 1: Kuuliza si ujinga [Asking is not foolish]

The first stage of IEM involves contextual understanding. Within Swahili communities, the proverb is frequently used to encourage questioning and the pursuit of understanding. It is often invoked when individuals hesitate to seek clarification or fear that asking questions may expose ignorance. The proverb therefore reflects a cultural appreciation of curiosity and recognises inquiry as a legitimate pathway to knowledge.

The second stage focuses on literal and metaphorical interpretation. Literally, the proverb asserts that asking questions should not be regarded as a sign of foolishness. Metaphorically, it communicates a broader understanding that learning requires openness, humility and engagement with others. Knowledge is not simply transmitted from experts to learners but is developed through dialogue and interaction.

The third stage involves evaluative interpretation. From an evaluative perspective, the proverb suggests that meaningful learning occurs when individuals are encouraged to ask questions, challenge assumptions and actively participate in inquiry. Evaluation is therefore understood not merely as a mechanism for measurement, but also as a process of learning and collective sense-making.

The fourth stage entails theoretical dialogue. The evaluative logic embedded within the proverb resonates with learning-oriented and participatory evaluation traditions, which view evaluation as a process of inquiry, reflection and knowledge co-construction (Greene 2005; Patton 2015; Schwandt & Gates 2021). At the same time, the proverb contributes an indigenous perspective by explicitly positioning questioning as a culturally valued practice of learning and knowledge generation.

The fifth stage involves application mapping. The insight generated from the proverb suggests that evaluation designs should create opportunities for dialogue, encourage stakeholder questioning and support collaborative learning processes. It reinforces the use of participatory methods, open-ended interviewing, reflective practice and adaptive evaluation approaches that evolve through ongoing inquiry.

Collectively, the analysis reveals an indigenous evaluative principle that learning is best achieved through active inquiry, dialogue and shared reflection.

Example 2: Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt]

The first stage of IEM begins with contextual understanding. In Swahili communities, the proverb is widely used to emphasise moral obligation, trustworthiness and social responsibility. It communicates the expectation that commitments made to others create obligations that should be honoured.

The second stage focuses on literal and metaphorical interpretation. Literally, a promise is equated to a debt that must eventually be repaid. Metaphorically, the proverb expresses a broader social ethic of accountability, reciprocity and responsibility. Commitments are not viewed as optional aspirations but as obligations that create legitimate expectations among those affected.

The third stage involves evaluative interpretation. The proverb suggests that actions, commitments and responsibilities should be assessed against what was promised. It therefore introduces a culturally grounded logic of accountability in which value is partly determined by the extent to which obligations have been fulfilled.

The fourth stage entails theoretical dialogue. This evaluative reasoning aligns with accountability-oriented evaluation approaches and results-based management frameworks that assess whether the intended objectives, commitments and outcomes have been achieved. However, the proverb extends these approaches by locating accountability within a moral and relational framework, rather than solely within managerial or contractual arrangements.

The fifth stage involves application mapping. The insight generated from the proverb supports evaluation approaches that assess the fulfilment of commitments, compare promised and actual results and incorporate stakeholder perspectives in determining whether obligations have been met. It also reinforces the importance of accountability mechanisms that are meaningful to local communities rather than exclusively to external funders or programme managers.

The analysis therefore reveals an indigenous evaluative principle that accountability is fundamentally relational and should be assessed through the fulfilment of commitments made to others. Detailed applications of IEM to these and other proverbs are presented in Online Appendix 1: Appendix B, which serves as an analytical audit trail for the Learn phase of the ELO methodology.

Applying IEM to the proverbial corpus generated a set of recurring evaluative insights that cut across individual proverbs and thematic domains. These insights constitute the primary analytical outputs of the Learn phase. While initially derived from specific proverbs, they transcend individual expressions and reveal broader indigenous understandings of how inquiry is conducted, how evidence is interpreted, how value is assigned and how responsibility is exercised within social life.

The process of interpretation revealed that many proverbs converge around common evaluative concerns, despite differences in wording, imagery and context. Through iterative analysis, these concerns were synthesised into broader evaluative concepts capable of informing evaluation theory and practice. Table 2 summarises the principal evaluative insights that emerged from the proverbial corpus.

Taken together, these insights reveal a coherent indigenous evaluative logic. Learning is understood as a dialogical process grounded in inquiry and participation; evidence is interpreted through culturally meaningful indicators and contextual observation; accountability is linked to the fulfilment of social obligations and commitments; and credible judgement is informed by lived experience, ethical responsibility and contextual understanding. Rather than constituting isolated observations, these insights collectively articulate indigenous perspectives on how knowledge should be generated, how value should be determined and how social action should be assessed.

Importantly, the significance of these insights extends beyond their practical relevance for evaluation design and implementation. They also point towards deeper assumptions about reality, knowledge, values and human relationships. In this sense, the evaluative insights generated through the Learn phase serve as a conceptual bridge between interpretation and philosophy. While the Learn phase focuses on understanding the evaluative wisdom embedded in proverbs, the Orient phase seeks to identify and articulate the broader philosophical beliefs that underpin that wisdom.

Interpretation within the Learn phase was guided by an ethic of humility, cultural respect and reflexive engagement. Because proverbs are inherently polysemous, their meanings are shaped by context, audience, historical experience and social purpose. Consequently, IEM was not employed to reduce proverbs to fixed evaluation concepts or predetermined theoretical categories. Rather, it was used as a dialogical process through which indigenous meanings could be explored, interpreted and placed in conversation with evaluation theory while preserving their cultural integrity.

Throughout the interpretive process, indigenous understandings were privileged, while remaining open to dialogue with contemporary evaluation scholarship. Alternative interpretations were retained where appropriate, recognising that proverbial wisdom often accommodates multiple layers of meaning and may illuminate different aspects of evaluative practice depending on context. This interpretive plurality was treated as a source of analytical richness rather than a methodological weakness.

Consistent with indigenous research methodologies (Chilisa 2012), consultation with Swahili language experts, indigenous knowledge holders and practising evaluators strengthened the cultural legitimacy and contextual sensitivity of the analysis. These engagements provided opportunities to verify interpretations, challenge assumptions and ensure that the emerging evaluative insights remained grounded in culturally recognised understandings rather than external analytical impositions.

The outcome of the Learn phase is thus a body of evaluative knowledge that is both culturally grounded and analytically robust. Having identified and interpreted the evaluative wisdom embedded within the proverbial corpus, the next phase of ELO focuses on orientation. The Orient phase synthesises these insights into explicit ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological beliefs capable of informing culturally grounded evaluation philosophies, frameworks and approaches.

The ontological beliefs emerging from the Learn phase are rooted primarily in insights concerning experiential knowledge and contextual sensitivity. Proverbs such as Kitanda usichokilalia hujui kunguni wake [You do not know the bugs of a bed you have not slept on], Matundu ya nyumba ayajua mwenye nyumba [Only the house owner knows the holes in the house] and Maji usiyoyafika hujui kina chake [You do not know the depth of water you have not reached] suggest that social realities exist independently of observers but are only partially knowable through lived experience and situated engagement.

These proverbs point towards a relational ontology in which the evaluand is understood as dynamic, contextually situated and experienced differently by different actors. Reality is therefore neither entirely objective nor wholly subjective; rather, it is revealed through relationships, participation and proximity. Therefore, understanding a programme, intervention or social phenomenon requires engagement with those who experience it directly.

From this perspective, evaluation cannot rely solely on detached observation or externally defined representations of reality. Instead, it must recognise that different stakeholders encounter and interpret the evaluand from distinct positions and experiences. The task of evaluation is therefore to engage with these multiple realities and construct a richer understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Ontologically, the ELO methodology therefore views the evaluand as a relational and context-dependent reality whose meaning emerges through interaction with those who live and experience it.

The epistemological beliefs emerging from the Learn phase are grounded in evaluative insights concerning inquiry, learning, evidence, observation and dialogue. Proverbs such as Kuuliza si ujinga [Asking is not foolish], Asiyeuliza hanalo ajifunzalo [He who does not ask learns nothing], Dalili ya mvua ni mawingu [The sign of rain is clouds] and Panapofuka moshi pana moto [Where there is smoke, there is fire] collectively suggest that knowledge is generated through questioning, experience, observation and interpretation.

These insights point towards an experiential, dialogical and inferential epistemology. Knowledge is not viewed as something that resides exclusively in experts, institutions or formal systems. Rather, it emerges through interaction, reflection, observation and engagement with lived realities. Learning occurs through asking questions, listening to others, observing signs of change and interpreting evidence within its cultural and social context.

The emphasis on observable signs and contextual interpretation also suggests that knowledge is often indirect and inferential. Just as clouds may signal rain and smoke may signal fire, evaluators must learn to recognise culturally meaningful indicators that point to underlying processes, outcomes and experiences. At the same time, proverbs such as Adhabu ya kaburi aijua maiti [The pain of the grave is known only to the corpse] affirm the value of insider knowledge and lived experience as important sources of understanding.

From an evaluation perspective, this epistemological orientation encourages evaluators to value multiple forms of evidence, including stories, observations, local indicators and experiential knowledge. It supports participatory inquiry, dialogue-based learning and the recognition that credible knowledge often emerges through interaction between evaluators and stakeholders, rather than through detached observation alone.

Epistemologically, the ELO methodology therefore views knowledge as socially constructed, contextually situated and generated through inquiry, experience, dialogue and interpretation.

The axiological beliefs emerging from the Learn phase are rooted in evaluative insights concerning accountability, ethical judgement, responsibility, humility and relational obligation. Proverbs such as Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt], Mlenga jiwe kundini hajui limpataye [He who throws a stone into a crowd does not know whom it hits] and Nyani haoni kundule [The baboon does not see its own rear] reveal a moral orientation centred on responsibility to others and awareness of the consequences of one’s actions.

These insights suggest a relational axiology in which values are embedded within social relationships, rather than in abstract principles alone. Accountability is understood not merely as compliance with externally imposed standards, but also as a moral obligation arising from commitments made to others. Likewise, ethical judgement requires humility, reflexivity and attentiveness to the effects of one’s decisions and actions.

The evaluative insights generated during the Learn phase also indicate that fairness and responsibility are inseparable from context. Judgements must consider whose interests are affected, whose voices are heard and who bears the consequences of decisions. Ethical evaluation therefore involves more than technical rigour; it requires respect, reciprocity, transparency and care for those who participate in and are affected by evaluation processes.

From this perspective, evaluation should be guided by principles of accountability, reflexivity, inclusion and social responsibility. Evaluators are expected to recognise their own limitations, remain attentive to unintended consequences and ensure that evaluation processes contribute positively to the communities they serve.

Axiologically, the ELO methodology views evaluation as a morally grounded practice guided by relational ethics, shared responsibility and accountability to affected stakeholders.

The methodological beliefs emerging from the Learn phase are grounded in evaluative insights concerning participation, collective knowledge creation, contextual adaptation, evidence generation and practical action. Proverbs such as Pekee pekee hauwezi tunga historia [One person cannot write history alone], Jogoo wa shamba hawiki mjini [A country rooster does not crow in town] and Aingiaye baharini huogelea [He who enters the sea must swim] collectively suggest that effective inquiry requires participation, contextual sensitivity and adaptive practice.

These insights point towards a participatory and context-responsive methodology. Knowledge is viewed as collectively generated rather than individually owned, implying that evaluation should involve diverse stakeholders in framing questions, generating evidence, interpreting findings and making judgements. The process of evaluation is therefore understood as collaborative rather than extractive.

The emphasis on contextual adaptation reflects a recognition that methods cannot simply be transferred from one setting to another without considering local realities. The proverb Jogoo wa shamba hawiki mjini cautions against the uncritical application of ideas, methods or assumptions across contexts. Instead, evaluators are encouraged to adapt their approaches to local cultures, experiences and forms of knowledge.

The methodological insights also emphasise responsiveness and practical competence. Evaluation is not merely an academic exercise; it is an engaged process that requires preparation, learning, responsiveness to emerging information and the ability to navigate complexity.

Methodologically, the ELO methodology therefore advocates participatory, culturally grounded, adaptive and context-sensitive approaches to evaluation that integrate local knowledge systems and encourage collective learning.

Beyond the four philosophical dimensions, the Orient phase revealed culturally grounded understandings of the meaning, rationale and purpose of evaluation itself. These dimensions emerged from recurring evaluative insights concerning accountability, learning, problem identification and collective understanding.

The proverb Ahadi ni deni [A promise is a debt] suggests that evaluation exists, in part, to assess whether commitments have been honoured. Evaluation is therefore understood as a mechanism for accountability and trust-building within social relationships. In contrast, proverbs such as Hila ya kikwapa kunuka pasipo kidonda [The armpit smells despite no wound] and Mficha maradhi kifo kinamuumbua [He who hides illness is exposed by death] highlight the rationale for evaluation as a means of uncovering hidden problems, identifying risks and supporting corrective action before challenges become crises.

The proverb Pekee pekee hauwezi tunga historia [One person cannot write history alone] provides insight into the meaning of evaluation as a collective process of learning and sense-making. Evaluation is not simply the measurement of performance; it is a social process through which communities, organisations and stakeholders jointly reflect on experience, construct understanding and make decisions about future action.

Together, these insights suggest that evaluation serves three interrelated functions. It promotes accountability by assessing whether commitments have been fulfilled; it supports learning and improvement by identifying hidden challenges and opportunities; and it facilitates collective understanding by bringing diverse perspectives together to interpret experience and inform action.

These culturally grounded understandings extend conventional views of evaluation beyond technical measurement and performance assessment. They position evaluation as a relational, ethical and socially necessary practice that contributes to accountability, learning, adaptation and collective well-being.

The Orient phase demonstrates how culturally grounded evaluative insights can be transformed into a coherent evaluation philosophy. Beginning with the evaluative wisdom embedded in Swahili proverbs, the ELO methodology systematically synthesises insights concerning inquiry, evidence, participation, accountability, judgement and lived experience into broader philosophical dimensions and evaluative concepts (Table 4). In doing so, it reveals that indigenous proverbial traditions are not merely repositories of cultural wisdom, but also sources of philosophical reasoning capable of informing evaluation theory and practice.

The resulting philosophy presents evaluation as a relational and contextually grounded process through which communities generate knowledge, assess commitments, learn from experience and make collective judgements about social action. Reality is understood as dynamic and experienced through relationships; knowledge emerges through dialogue, observation and lived experience; ethics are rooted in accountability and responsibility; and methodological choices are guided by participation, contextual sensitivity and adaptability. Evaluation is therefore conceived not simply as a technical exercise of measurement but as a culturally embedded practice of inquiry, learning, valuing and collective sense-making.

Although this philosophical framework is illustrated through Swahili proverbs, the methodological process through which it was generated is transferable to other African and indigenous knowledge traditions. By making explicit the progression from indigenous wisdom to evaluative insights and from evaluative insights to evaluation philosophy, the ELO methodology provides a systematic process for developing culturally grounded evaluation philosophies, frameworks and approaches. The SEA represents one application of this methodology.

The Orient phase therefore completes the transformation of indigenous proverbial wisdom into evaluation knowledge. Together, the Extract, Learn and Orient phases demonstrate how culturally embedded knowledge systems can serve not only as sources of contextual relevance, but also as generative foundations for evaluation philosophy, methodological innovation and epistemic pluralism in evaluation.