Editorial to Special Issue: “Manuel Pérez-Troncoso, Katrina L. Bledsoe, Karen Peterman, Theresa N. Melton, and Rodney K. Hopson: “…People-centered approaches challenge evaluators to “walk the talk” of culturally responsive, equitable, and socially just practices by expanding the role of evaluation in service to society. This means not only studying with communities but also giving back, investing in, and standing side by side with them (Bledsoe 2021, 2014). Similar to many efforts working across multiple sectors, people-centered approaches often take place in communities shaped by a history of colonialism, discrimination, and marginalization, which continues to influence life, opportunity, and culture on a daily basis. Researchers and evaluators must strive to build authentic, collaborative relationships with participants to understand and help tell the story of how they are affected by the programs we work with. We must integrate and prioritize culture, local context, and community perspectives in all aspects of program and evaluation design, implementation, and use.
This issue identifies three key dimensions that differentiate People-Centered Evaluation (PCE) from program-centered evaluation, as outlined in Table 1: Full humanity (the evaluator’s positionality and axiology); prioritizing relationships (investment in relationships vs. extraction); and community engagement (pursues open vs. selective access). These dimensions reflect a relational worldview: ontologically, reality is understood as co-constructed through relationships and contexts; epistemologically, knowledge emerges through dialogue, participation, and lived experience; and methodologically, evaluation practices adapt to community-defined meanings and purposes (Mertens et al. 2025). We contend that evaluation feels and functions differently when it is prioritized using the people-centered distinctions in Table 1. We challenge readers to consider the following: In what ways would your evaluation practice look different if you began a new project with the intention of being an agent of social change versus a distant observer? In what ways would your evaluation practice look different if you began a new project with the intention of fostering and strengthening relationships with community members rather than focusing on creating a context for gathering data? In what ways would your evaluation theories, processes, and communication strategies differ if you prioritized and centered authentic community engagement?TABLE 1. Differences between program-centered evaluation and people-centered evaluation.
| Dimensions | Program-centered evaluation | People-centered evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Full humanity | Pursue objectivity, impartial assessments of programs, initiatives, and strategies | Evaluators, as agents for social change, address inequalities; acknowledgespositionality, and perspective |
| Prioritizing relationships | Focus on results, efficiency, and impact | Invest in long-term relationships with participants |
| Community engagement | Engage stakeholders selectively, often based on roles and specific need | Ensure open access and inclusive engagement with communities |
This issue aims to push the boundaries of evaluation by focusing on both theoretical advances and practical applications of people-centered approaches, based upon those that are culturally-responsive, indigenous, and equity-driven approaches…(More)”.
