UKES website
  call for abstracts

Contributions are invited on methods, practice and policy from civil society, government, academia and business, both in the UK and overseas. Structured abstracts for papers, symposiums, discussion panels, workshops and posters should cover one of the following themes:

Theme 1: Improving the demand for high quality evaluations and building trust in evaluation evidence
  • Can evaluations counter the emergence of fake news and 'alternative facts'? If so, how?
  • Stimulating the demand for high quality evaluations and evidence.
  • Better communication of evaluative evidence using infographics and data visualisation.
  • Making evaluations more influential.
Theme 2: Approaches to conducting high quality evaluations and generating useful evidence
  • The relationship between evaluation methods, rigour, and quality.
  • How do commissioner – evaluator relationships affect quality?
  • 'Co-creation': commissioner – evaluator co-working and joint analysis.
  • The state of the art in high quality, quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations.
  • Making use of digital technology for evaluation data collection and analysis.
  • Increasing the involvement of citizens in evaluations through the use of digital technology, including evaluation and citizen science.
Theme 3: What is evaluation quality and how to assess it?
  • Approaches to evaluation rigour.
  • 'Right rigour' – what is a proportionate level of quality for a given evaluation question?
  • Trade-off in evaluation quality. Eg can timely, but quick-and-dirty evaluations be more influential than slower but more traditionally rigorous ones?
  • Is evaluation quality methods-driven?
  • Frameworks for strength of evidence - do current frameworks adequately deal with quality and strength of evidence in non-experimental and mixed method evaluations?
Theme 4: Exploring the links between quality dimensions and evaluation use
  • Which aspects of evaluation quality have most effect on use and uptake, and how can this be improved?
  • How to strike the right balance between evaluation quality and uptake of the evidence generated?
  • When (if ever) is it right to 'dare' to have a low quality evaluation?
  • Are our evaluation products fit for purpose? Is an evaluation report or a peer-reviewed publication enough?
  • Going beyond the report – what other type of output can be produced to improve evaluation use and uptake of evidence?
Theme 5: Pursuing quality throughout the evaluation cycle
  • What are commissioners doing to procure better evaluations?
  • How do we make sure evaluation commissioners are asking the right questions? Do we know what the right questions are?
  • What is the state of the art in quality assurance of evaluations?
  • How is information technology being used to improve evaluations?
  • How is evaluation improved through citizen science and the democratisation of evaluation?
  • What does good evaluation use and evidence uptake look like, and how is it best achieved?
  Types of Presentation

In order to ensure that the conference is as interactive and participatory as possible you are encouraged to tailor your presentation to meet one of the following types of sessions:

Theory session: The focus of such a session may be on innovative evaluation models, theoretical critiques of evaluation and evaluation approaches, new evaluation concepts, or similar theoretical developments in evaluation.
Methods session: The focus of such a session is on the development and delivery of a new evaluation method or the novel application of an emerging and promising tool. This would include use of digital technology in evaluation.
Practice session: The focus of such a session is on the practice of evaluation, as a discipline or profession, or experiences and lessons from practicing particular evaluation methods and approaches.
Case study session: The focus of such a session is the presentation of a specific evaluation or evaluation process that has generated notable intended or unintended outcomes in order to facilitate a discussion with the attendees.


Each parallel session will last 1½ hours and consist of two interactive 'presentations' within a particular theme (ie each 'presentation' will last approximately 45 minutes). To make the sessions as interactive as possible, can you please ensure that the actual presentation element (ie standing-up and talking) does not last more than 20 minutes. This will allow at least half the session to be dedicated to group discussions and questions. In addition, we would be very interested in receiving submissions for a full 1½ hour session if the people involved are different (eg a single organisation could have two separate teams present on a related topic within a single session). There is also an opportunity to deliver small interactive workshop or training sessions limited to 15 delegates.

The conference organisers will group papers on the basis of the information given in the abstract, with particular attention paid to the participatory / interactive element of the brief.

A guidance note on the use of Powerpoint presentations can be found on the website


Structured abstracts should not exceed 300 words, and must include information under the following headings:

  • Context and objectives
  • Methods
  • Findings and learning points from the session
  • Type of session

Outside the word count authors may include up to three references including relevant evaluation theories and methods used, policy documents and other relevant studies so that readers can refer to them. Authors are asked to name and provide an email address for the corresponding author.

  Conference participants may submit a poster for display at the conference, outlining an evaluation project or case study which falls under one of the key themes detailed above. Posters will be displayed in a dedicated space at the conference venue. If you would like to submit a poster, please provide an abstract with a brief overview of your evaluation (max 150 words).
  Alternative Formats
  The conference organisers are open to suggestions for alternative formats of sessions and presentation, especially if they are interactive and participatory. Please submit an abstract describing your proposed session and its relevance to the conference theme.
  Abstract Submission

Abstracts can be submitted on-line via this website

The closing date for receipt of abstracts for formal presentations is 8 January 2018 and for poster presentations is 17 April 2018.

  Submitting a Paper

Work presented at the conference can also be submitted as a full paper. For the last several years, we have awarded a prize for best paper. The papers are assessed by the conference team and in order to ensure consistency in the review process the following structure should be followed.

The paper should be between 5-10 pages. If the paper is based on a completed evaluation, it should include context, objectives, methods/evaluation approach, findings and/or learning points, and references where relevant. Importantly, it should give a clear indication of why it should be of interest to a wider readership ie what 'evaluative' point is it making. The paper can be a summary of a longer document or report in which case a reference to the full document should be included. Papers might also be considered which are based on a consideration or discussion of an aspect of evaluation theory or approach. In this case, they must be making an original contribution to evaluation knowledge.

Our aim is to publish the winning paper and we can work with the author(s) to achieve a standard suitable for inclusion in the Evaluation journal.






Conference administration

Professional Briefings
1 St Mary's Courtyard
Church Street
SG12 9EF

Tel: 01920 487672