Greetings, we are Amy Jersild, PhD candidate, and Michael Harnar, Assistant Professor, from Western Michigan University. We have been thinking about ways to use evaluation to address inequities and imbalances of power within global governance, a term used to characterize systems of decision-making among international actors.
A significant trend since the early 2000s is the shift from traditional multilateralism and the role of the nation-state as primary actor in governing, to “multistakeholderism,” officially sanctioned by a UN and World Economic Forum agreement in 2019. This new model – distinct from the more commonly known public-private partnerships formed to deliver services — involves the formation of committees comprised of both governmental and non-governmental actors to engage in global governance processes. While this shift offers opportunities for broad participation, it also raises serious concerns about democratic representation and accountability. Power dynamics within these multistakeholder groups can be uneven, favoring powerful economic interests and further marginalizing the poor. This trend has challenged the notion of “good governance,” a term coined in the 1990s, described as involving strong institutions, promotion of democratic ideals of fairness and equity, and justice.
Deliberative Democratic Evaluation (DDE) used in conjunction with Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) can be one way to address the challenges posed by multistakeholderism. Developed in the 1970s as a pluralist approach, DDE aims to facilitate inclusive dialogue and deliberation among diverse stakeholders with competing interests. DDE is built on 3 core principles: inclusion of all relevant perspectives, dialogue to explore different views, and deliberation to reach conclusions. By applying DDE together with CSH, a framework that supports systematic boundary critique and judgment, there may be opportunity to create more equitable and sustainable outcomes aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals.
Consider the fast fashion industry as an example of a complex global challenge with varied interests and power imbalances involved. This industry involves multiple stakeholders across the world, from powerful corporations to vulnerable workers to the environment. As an evaluation approach in working with a multistakeholder fast fashion industry group, DDE used together with CSH may demonstrate a means for working to systematically identify, critique, and justify assumptions while promoting critical reflection on values. Such an evaluation approach becomes an organizing tool to guide good governance efforts by holding democratic ideals as central.
Hot Tips
While we acknowledge the challenges involving powerful economic interests at play, combined with weakened nation-states, the following techniques used within a DDE and CSH evaluation approach may offer greater possibilities for “leveling the playing field” and addressing power imbalances:
1. Use deliberative polling: Gather opinions from stakeholders on key topics before and after deliberation to help identify shifts in perspective and values among participants.
2. Create an “ideal map”: As part of the deliberative process, work with stakeholders to envision an ideal version of the industry or system under consideration. This can help guide discussions on roles, responsibilities, and accountability.
3. Employ Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH): Use CSH questions to explore different aspects of the system, including motivation, control, knowledge, and legitimacy. This can help uncover hidden assumptions and power dynamics.
4. Conduct pre- and post-forum interviews: To ensure all voices are heard, consider conducting individual interviews before and after group deliberations.
Rad Resource
Check out our book chapter for further discussion on a DDE and CSH approach applied within the fast fashion industry: Promoting Good Governance in a Digital Era: The Case for Deliberative Democratic Evaluation.
The American Evaluation Association is hosting Democracy, Human Rights and Governance TIG Week with our colleagues in the Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our DRG TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.