The growing movement to decolonise and make more equitable evaluation theory and practice has implications for all types of evaluation studies. 

Although various frameworks for more equitable practice exist, these broadly advocate for greater engagement and collaboration with local stakeholders and beneficiaries at all stages of evaluation research; increased attention to local context; and recognition of the value of local and indigenous knowledge and knowledge systems to improve the relevance and effectiveness of interventions and research, and prevent harm (Chilisa & Mertens, 2021).

Developing a framework for more equitable partnerships to address current power asymmetries in global health research and practice has been a key focus of some recent work at LSHTM (EquiPar Tool to Support Equitable Partnerships for Research Projects). The Centre for Evaluation is also engaged in work to develop a set of resources to support decolonial and equitable practice in evaluation.

Recent debate related to process evaluation questions has focused on philosophical and methodological questions about the integration of realist methods (Pawson and Tiley, 1997) with trials to evaluate complex interventions. 

The concept of the ‘realist randomised controlled trial’ was first introduced by Bonell et al (2018).  Bonell et al argued that realist trials, involving mediator analysis and qualitative inquiry, could be used to evaluate realist questions about how, for whom and under what conditions complex interventions can improve health. However, some realist evaluators have argued that trials are inherently incompatible with a realist philosophy. 

This has resulted in a series of articles (Bonell et al, 2013) published on the topic. More recently, a book on Realist Trials and Systematic Reviews was published by Bonell et al.

The issue of how to balance strict implementation fidelity and local adaptation has also been a topic of discussion in the implementation and process evaluation literature. 

In Hawe et al (2004), the authors argue that in the case of complex interventions fidelity should be judged not based on whether the precise form (activities) of delivery is faithful to what was intended but rather on the basis of fidelity of function - whether what is delivered locally enables the achievement of the mechanisms of causation described in the intervention’s theory of change. Scope to tailor specific activities to local needs may better ensure their implementation and outcomes as well as potential for transferability and scale up.