This article examines the challenges of ensuring neutrality in participatory evaluations of complex interventions, particularly the trade-off between inclusivity and collective rationality in decision-making. It critically assesses four participatory evaluation tools—Most Significant Change (MSC), Causal Mapping (CM), SenseMaker (SM), and Outcome Harvesting (OH)—to determine their effectiveness in managing biases and synthesizing participant contributions at the collective level.

A key issue identified is that these tools either suppress or bypass bias rather than engaging with it productively, resulting in lower social inclusiveness or collective rationality of evaluation. MSC, for example, aggregates narratives through a hierarchical selection process, progressively filtering stories from individual participants to key stakeholders, which risks reinforcing existing power asymmetries. CM employs causal analysis but struggles to synthesize findings at the macro level, leaving stakeholders to interpret the complex relationships on their own. SM uses statistical plotting to transform narratives into numerical data, yet this reductionist approach can obscure the richness of participants’ insights. OH prioritizes emergent outcomes but focuses primarily on key stakeholders’ interpretations, neglecting perspectives from structurally excluded groups.

The article proposes an alternative framework based on the concept of the “empty middle,” which integrates biases rather than overcomming them. This approach enables an evaluative space where biases interact dynamically, fostering both inclusivity and collective rationality. For instance, traditional inclusionary efforts amplify marginalized voices but fail to examine their interrelations. The empty middle approach instead maps the interactions among excluded groups, uncovering hidden networks and alternative governance structures that emerge from systemic exclusion. The article introduces the concept of “blindsighted evaluation,” wherein biases are positioned in opposition to one another, revealing deeper patterns of social exclusion and distortion of evaluation’s collective rationality. Rather than attempting artificial compromises, this approach allows inclusivity and rationality to co-evolve through iterative synthesis in the empty middle.

A major critique of current participatory tools is their implicit reinforcement of elite-driven decision-making. For instance, search for the most significant change privileges dominant perspectives. Similarly, SM’s quantification of narratives risks depoliticizing the voices of excluded groups by aligning their insights with predefined signifiers. CM and OH also exhibit limitations in how they aggregate diverse inputs, either overgeneralizing findings or refusing synthesis altogether. The empty middle framework addresses these deficiencies by shifting from macro-level synthesis, which homogenizes inputs, to meta-level reasoning, which engages tensions and contradictions dynamically. Instead of reducing diverse perspectives to a singular output, this framework identifies meaningful overlaps between competing viewpoints, creating a collectively rational outcome that retains epistemic openness.

The empty middle is more socially inclusive because it does not merely amplify marginalized voices but actively examines how different excluded groups interact. It recognizes that inclusion is not just about representation but about relational dynamics—how various forms of exclusion reinforce or counteract each other. For instance, evaluation methods like MSC may highlight the most compelling individual stories of change, but they fail to investigate the broader structures of exclusion that condition those stories. The empty middle approach shifts the focus from isolated voices to the intersection of exclusions, revealing hidden alliances, tensions, and alternative governance mechanisms. It also recognizes that exclusion is not limited to minority representation but often affects large portions of the population structurally – participatory methods often reflect the reality of the powerful minority rather than the powerless majority. Traditional evaluation tools give the illusion of inclusivity while structurally favoring those who are already included in decision-making processes. By contrast, the empty middle acknowledges the mechanisms of epistemic exclusion and actively works to redistribute evaluative power.

The empty middle is also more collectively rational because it replaces simplistic aggregation with meta-level synthesis. Conventional participatory methods either reduce diverse perspectives to a common denominator or refuse synthesis altogether, leaving participants to navigate contradictions on their own. The empty middle approach, however, actively engages contradictions and seeks patterns within them. Rather than dismissing bias as an obstacle, it treats bias as an epistemic resource. For example, in CM, causal pathways are mapped, but the synthesis remains selective and reductionist. The empty middle instead positions competing biases against each other to expose their underlying assumptions and distortions. This generates a richer understanding of complex issues, allowing collective reasoning to emerge organically rather than being imposed through predefined categories. Furthermore, traditional approaches struggle with the inherent uncertainty of complex interventions by imposing rigid analytical structures. The empty middle, in contrast, embraces epistemic indeterminacy, allowing evaluators to engage with multiple plausible interpretations rather than enforcing a singular narrative. It resists the dominance of logocentric perspectives – which means enforcing one-sided or narrow-minded – ensuring that collective reasoning remains open-ended and dynamic, rather than being captured by predefined indicators that emphasise key stakeholders’ view.

This new framework ensures inclusivity without fragmentation by analyzing the interplay of biases rather than relying on superficial participation metrics. It prevents dominant perspectives from monopolizing the evaluative process by shifting from macro-level aggregation to meta-level synthesis, thereby creating a more inclusive and collectively rational outcome. It also navigates complexity through the exposure of biases, mapping epistemic voids rather than trying to eliminate them. Most importantly, it resists structural exclusion by transforming evaluation into a redistributive process that shifts epistemic agency from privileged groups to the majority (!) of participants.

Practically, this means that participatory evaluation must reframe neutrality as structured bias interplay rather than artificial objectivity. Instead of focusing solely on separate marginalized groups, it must analyze how different exclusions interact and shape collective choices. It must also move beyond reductionist aggregation methods and implement meta-level synthesis that retains complexity rather than erasing it. Finally, it must ensure that excluders—those who obstruct inclusive deliberation—do not dominate the process, reinforcing existing inequities under the guise of participatory neutrality. By embedding evaluation within the empty middle, this paradigm shift resolves the long-standing trade-off between inclusivity and collective rationality. Evaluation is no longer a bureaucratic exercise but a generative space where collective intelligence is formed through structured epistemic indeterminacy. The empty middle transforms participatory evaluation from an instrument of governance into a dynamic process of uncovering hidden structures, engaging contradictions, and enabling more inclusive and rational collective decision-making.

Summary of the Working Paper of the Slovenian Evaluation Society 1/XVII(2024): https://www.sdeval.si/2025/01/08/inclusive-or-rational-participatory-evaluation/

 

Oznake: