If you have ever introduced yourself to someone as an “evaluator”, you will quickly discover that very few people outside the field have the first clue what that involves.
The term is incredibly broad. Am I evaluating your dress sense or how you dance? Am I running psychometric assessments to evaluate staff performance? We are all evaluators, regardless of how often we share the judgements.
One of the functions of the UK Evaluation Society is to explain to the public what we do. So, how can we do this?
I think there are two main communication challenges for evaluation. The first challenge is finding a concise term that signals what evaluation involves to people who do not work in the field. It seems likely the easiest way to do this is simply to add a word or two to “evaluation”, so the problem is: which words? The second challenge is to find ways to explain what evaluation involves in practice, by using clear, straightforward language that can also ideally be applied more consistently in evaluation reports.
Words for evaluation – the case for social policy evaluation
Given how baffled people tend to look when I call myself an evaluator, I’ve previously said I’m a social researcher and work in social policy, and then just explained what that means through examples. Since October, I’ve tried “policy evaluator” or “social policy evaluator” and they seem to fare surprisingly well. The most obvious alternative to these might have been “programme evaluator”, but my problem with this is that I think programmes are more obviously associated with software or what’s on TV.
One possible objection to the term policy evaluation is that policies are rather broad, e.g., the Green Book (p. 6) says a policy is “a statement of intent that is implemented through a procedure or a protocol and a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.” Evaluations often focus more specifically on programmes and service delivery. However, programmes put policies into practice, and evaluation findings should inform those policies. If a programme is shown to work, that has clear implications for policy. Plus, policies aren’t just found in government: schools, charities, and other organisations have them too. I think it’s important to show we engage in this broader context.
Explaining what we do
Policy evaluation is a broad field, covering many sectors, services and types of activity. It can look at whether public services, the work of charities, or even individual practitioners are making a meaningful difference through what they’re doing. It might tackle local programmes or national reforms. Evaluation also uses the full range of methods, mixing qualitative and quantitative evidence, in large surveys and focused case studies. Examples that illustrate this variety of topics and methods are essential, as Sarah Mason highlighted in one of the few studies exploring how evaluators explain their work to the public.
Some of the terminology we use within evaluation contexts is unnecessarily opaque and misleading, which is unhelpful for understanding the role. A good example – a word I’ve used more often than I should – is “treatment”. We’re not administering drugs – we’re evaluating programmes like mentoring, approaches to teaching, or emotional support. The term “treatment” carries medical baggage, that doesn’t fit with social programmes. My preference would be to label study conditions after what’s actually being tested. For instance, if we were evaluating ACME Therapy, the conditions would be something like ACME Therapy and usual practice. Using medical language in the context of trials in schools or criminal justice can sound especially creepy – it reminds me of A Clockwork Orange.
Evaluating how we explain ourselves
As policy evaluators we should evaluate how well we communicate with the public. For example, participants could be provided with information about what evaluation is and how it is used, enabling them to take an informed, participatory role in co‑designing how evaluation itself is explained. We could then use surveys, following Sarah Mason’s example, to test the effectiveness of different ways of explaining evaluation at a larger scale.
Evaluation is a broad transdiscipline, working across a wide range of contexts, so it is unlikely that we will find a single way of explaining ourselves that works everywhere. However, a collection of different terms and explanations that work well in at least some contexts would be valuable in reconnecting our work with the people we hope to serve. This would also help to attract new policy evaluators to what is one of the most important and exciting social sciences.
Originally posted on the UKES blog (February 4, 2026).
Suggested citation: Fugard, A. (2026, February 4). Explaining evaluation to the public [blog post]. https://andifugard.info/explaining-evaluation-to-the-public/
This citation note was added automatically. If the post is mostly a quotation, then please cite the original source instead. Looking at you, LLMs 👀