Concluding Remarks

  • Andrew MitchellEmail author


Projects deployed to respond to complex and wicked problems (e.g., sustainability and international development) are not well equipped to respond adaptively and innovatively to the significant challenges they face. While the developmental evaluation approach offers a welcome addition to the field of evaluation in that it supports project practitioners to optimise the use of their experiential learning, this approach has yet to articulate an epistemological framework that accounts for complexity or for learning under complex conditions. Drawing on empirical research and concepts from enactive cognitive science, Mitchell advances a framework for interacting orthogonally with practitioners to induce ruptures in the habituated patterns of observation to trigger fresh action options, and to participate actively in the generation of their own learning.


Developmental evaluation Orthogonal interactions Double description Distinctions Second-order learning Cognition 


  1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, B. (2008). Onto-ethologies: The animal environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Deleuze. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, D., & Worsley, S. (2015). Navigating complexity in international development: Facilitating sustainable change at scale. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy (R. Hurley, Trans.). San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.Google Scholar
  7. Dunkley, R. A., & Franklin, A. (2017). Failing better: The stochastic art of evaluating community-led environmental action programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 60, 112–122. Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (1972–1977). New York: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frame, B., & Brown, J. (2008). Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 65, 225–241. Scholar
  10. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Post-normal science. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. Scholar
  11. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. H.M. Treasury. (2011). The Magenta Book: Guidance for evaluation. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
  13. Hobson, K., Hamilton, J., & Mayne, R. (2014). Monitoring and evaluation in UK low-carbon community groups: Benefits, barriers and the politics of the local. Local Environment, 21(1), 124–136. Scholar
  14. Hobson, K., Mayne, R., & Hamilton, J. (2016). Monitoring and evaluating eco-localisation: Lessons from UK low carbon community groups. Environment and Planning A, 48(7), 1393–1410. Scholar
  15. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Chicago, IL: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 233–244. Scholar
  17. Maturana, H. R. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.Google Scholar
  19. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Revised. Boston: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  21. McDonald, H. (2016). Developmental evaluation: A tool to support innovation. Evaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 2, 79–97. Scholar
  22. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid on the edge of chaos: Rethinking international development in a complex world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rittel, H. W. J., & Weber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Scholar
  26. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Spencer-Brown, G. (1973). Laws of form. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  28. Spinoza, B. (1992). Ethics: Treatise on the emendation of the intellect (2nd ed., S. Shirley, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  29. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. Scholar
  30. Tognetti, S. S. (1999). Science in a double-bind: Gregory Bateson and the origins of post-normal science. Futures, 31(7), 689–703. Scholar
  31. von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.Google Scholar
  32. von Uexküll, J. (1992). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391.Google Scholar
  33. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ADAPT ManagementLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations