Can we undo the Gordian knot once and for all and decide whether we need accreditation, credentialing and certification?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece on professionalizing evaluation that attracted a great deal of attention. Many of you contributed interesting views, suggestions and concerns, suggesting the subject is "€œalive and well".

But the debate has gone on a long time, spanning articles in the American Journal of Evaluation when I started out in evaluation 25 years ago, to recent features in the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, and in New Directions for Evaluation. The longevity of the debate, and the absence of any obvious consensus leads me to ask if the subject is so fraught that there is no likely solution, and if there is little sense in expending more effort on it?

But, as Wilcox and King explain, professionalization has taken significant time in coming about for many other professions, from carpenters to doctors, moving through what seems to be a common evolutionary process involving the establishment of professional associations, standards, and systems for legitimizing practitioners.

And, as anyone practicing, researching, or teaching evaluation knows, evaluators are a diverse lot, representative of strong and often different views of what is right or wrong. So maybe we'€™re not doing too badly given our profession is recognizable as such for less than 60 years, and maybe we shouldn't expect to have solved all of the problems just yet!

From my perspective, there is a range of pressures and factors at play that are nudging us, as a global evaluation community, ever closer towards professionalization.

These include pressures on improving the quality of evaluations.

• Effectiveness of Evaluation. Users of evaluation are increasingly inclined to ask questions about what difference evaluation makes, about value-for-money, and about evaluation quality. These, legitimate questions will intensify, and push us to better demonstrate the effectiveness of our work and how we influence change -€“ the competence of evaluators has a big role to play in this.
   
• Delivering timely, high quality evaluations. For some time, commissioners of evaluation have struggled to get the right people for the right jobs. At least part of the drive towards professionalization is motivated by frustrations with the costs -€“ not just in money, but also in time, reputation, and effort -€“ associated with poor quality evaluations.

The risks to the users of evaluation findings - making ill-informed decisions and suffering the consequences - are real, and so are the risks to the evaluation profession. If evaluation cannot positively influence change - and quality of evaluation is an important determinant in that its own relevance might be questioned.

As evaluators, our aim needs to be to deliver commonly defined, higher quality evaluations of a type that new entrants to the profession can train for, build upon, and develop further. And that brings me to what might be a turning point in the professionalization debate: the formal training of professional evaluators. LaVelle & Donaldson (NDE 2015) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current supply of evaluators. They observe, that while evaluation continues to be embedded in faculties like education, or public sector management, the last decade has seen an incredible expansion of degree programs (masters and doctorate).

The cadre of professionals graduating from these programs will shift the formation of the profession. In spite of the weaknesses in the current "supply chain" of evaluators, these graduates will have a lot more in common than, say, those who enter evaluation as part of a broader career in the field of international development. Many of them are keenly interested in international development and understand the potential of evaluation to effect positive change. They will become more and more demanding of their peers, and will more readily agree on shared concepts, understandings, and practices. I am also confident they will be mindful of the importance of recognizing diverse value systems and local context, and of codifying competencies and codes of conduct to ensure greater systematic focus on these dimensions of our work than at present.

In short: I believe the move towards professionalization is inevitable and, if managed wisely, can bring an incredible boost to the evaluation profession.

But do we need to wait for the new generation of evaluators, or is there something we can do to spur the process? For instance, LaVelle speaks about weaknesses in the formal education system for evaluators. A concerted effort from evaluators in academia, research, and practice could strengthen the offerings in degree courses for evaluation across faculties. Likewise, the Canadian experience shows the importance of broad-based consultation, which, although time-consuming and complicated, is essential to create ownership.

I will be discussing these questions at the CEval in Germany in a couple of days, and will also present evaluation competencies and their use at the WBG. So, notwithstanding the longevity of the debate about professionalization, it appears to be far from over. Stay tuned!