2026 - Call for paper

2025-09-25

Rationale and objectives

In an era marked by interconnected crises, the approaches and tools of evaluation require profound rethinking. This is particularly true in highly complex sectors at the national and global levels, such as community healthcare, policies for the ecological transition, or social inclusion pathways, where outcomes depend on a dense network of interconnected variables rather than single causes. Too often, evaluation remains bound to a linear and reductionist approach (Harris et al., 2025), focusing on measuring superficial phenomena instead of analyzing the systemic structures and mental models that generate them (Kim, 1999).

The lively national and international debate on the subject highlights how evaluation often risks being instrumentalized and reduced to competitive-efficiency logics (AICCON, 2024, p. 7), transforming into a performative exercise aimed more at “confirming and showing stakeholders the value of one’s work” (Marocchi, 2020, p. 44) than at generating genuine, change-oriented learning. This publication stems from the observation of a paradox: a growing emphasis on evaluation corresponds to a limited capacity to guide policies and organizational strategies. Examples include reforms in local welfare or national plans to combat school dropout, which are often accompanied by imposing monitoring architectures that struggle to translate into real and widespread improvement of services for citizens.

The objective of this call for papers is to gather theoretical contributions and applied case studies from which factors such as the sector, the actors involved, the methodologies and techniques used, the evaluators' competencies, the learning and empowerment outcomes, and the strengths and weaknesses can emerge. These are indeed essential elements to help policymakers, practitioners, and researchers move beyond the view of evaluation as a mere measurement tool, exploring it instead as a transformative practice (Venturi, 2019; AICCON, 2024): a pedagogical, intrinsically political, and dialogic process.

The intention is therefore to investigate how evaluation can become a driver of change to promote empowerment and social justice through processes of conscious and transformative learning (Fetterman, 1994; Patton, 2017). Since many social interventions take place in complex contexts, where cause-and-effect relationships are non-linear and the future is unpredictable (Hummelbrunner, 2011), evaluation approaches that can rise to this complexity are necessary.

To foster a rich and multidimensional debate, contributions that integrate different perspectives will be particularly appreciated. We encourage reflections that combine theoretical and research analysis with the viewpoint of those working in the field (practitioners) and those who commission, finance, or use evaluation at a strategic level (policymakers and institutional clients), promoting a fruitful dialogue among the various actors in the evaluation process.

Thematic axes and areas of interest

To explore the vision of evaluation as a transformative practice, we invite contributions, analyses, and experiences structured around three interconnected thematic axes, highlighting the implications for specific sectors of public intervention.

Power, emancipation, and accountability

We seek reflections on how evaluation processes can become arenas for the negotiation and rebalancing of power, with a focus on participatory approaches. Starting from a complex notion of oppression (Muraca, 2021), we aim to delve into the "civic perspective" of evaluation, which promotes the shift from “stakeholder” to “assetholder”, recognizing communities as bearers of resources (AICCON, 2024). From this viewpoint, we are particularly interested in analyses of practices or proposals that apply this approach to concrete areas such as social cohesion, community health, the management of common goods, urban regeneration, or educational pacts, showing how an evaluation oriented towards self-determination (Fetterman, 1994) can transform the governance of services.

Role, responsibility, and reflexivity of the evaluator

We solicit contributions that investigate the “public responsibility” of the evaluator as a facilitator of collective learning processes (Fetterman, 1994). A crucial point is the tension between evaluation for accountability and evaluation for learning (Stame, 2020). We invite analyses and experiences that explore this dilemma in specific sectors: for example, in active labor market policies, where a focus solely on employment rates can hide low-quality outcomes, or in educational policies, where performance measured by standardized tests may conflict with deep learning objectives. The goal is to explore how to foster a post-evaluation “action context” that is genuinely oriented towards redesigning interventions (Harris et al., 2025).

Methodological innovation and critical approaches

This axis is dedicated to the presentation of innovative and reflective approaches. Alongside structured frameworks like the "learning framework" (Berterman and Coffmann, 2024), we intend to give voice to the critical debate that complements the Theory of Change and the analysis of contextual mechanisms with a reflection on the possible limits of evaluation approaches (Barbetta, 2020; Musella, 2020). We particularly encourage contributions that discuss the application or adaptation of these methodologies to complex challenges, such as evaluating the impacts of the digital transition on equity, the effectiveness of policies for environmental sustainability, or the long-term outcomes of social innovation interventions.

Submission guidelines

Proposed contributions will undergo a double-blind peer review process and will be selected based on the final and unappealable decision of the referees. Submissions that have been previously published elsewhere in the same form, including on the AIV website, will not be accepted. Authors are required to suggest two potential referees for the review of their article.

Contributions, in Italian or English, must adhere to the following requirements (failure to do so will result in non-acceptance):

Length: Between 40,000 and 50,000 characters (including spaces, graphs, and tables).
Editorial standards: Compliance with the journal’s guidelines, published on the Franco Angeli publisher's website on the RIV
Submission: Exclusively through the publisher’s online platform.

All submission information is available in the online regulations.

Selected contributions will be published in the third volume of RIV of 2026. Authors are invited to take this timeline into account to ensure the timeliness of their work.

Proposals must be uploaded to the online platform starting from the publication date of this call until March 31, 2026. The peer review process will conclude by the end of June 2026. Accepted articles will be placed in the journal issue according to the schedule and sequence that the editorial board deems most consistent with the journal's annual editorial strategy.

AICCON. (2024). La prospettiva civile dell’impatto sociale. (Autori: L. De Benedictis, S. Miccolis, P. Venturi, & S. Zamagni). Forlì: AICCON.

Barbetta, G. P. (2020). Sono utili gli interventi sociali? Impresa Sociale, (4), 21–26.

Bertermann, K., & Coffman, J. (2024). Embedding learning in systems change: A learning framework for testing uncertainties. Center for Evaluation Innovation.

Depedri, S. (2020). La valutazione dell’impatto sociale? Farla divenire uno strumento utile. Impresa Sociale, (4), 12–20.

Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(1), 1–15.

Harris, B., Alderman, L., & Staheli, J. (2025). The forgotten contexts of evaluation. Evaluation, 31(2), 240-261.

Kim, D. H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications.

Marocchi, G. (2020). Per una analisi critica della valutazione. Impresa Sociale, (4), 44–53.

Muraca, M. (2021). Colonialismo e decolonizzazione negli scritti di Paulo Freire. Encyclopaideia - Journal of Phenomenology and Education, 25(61), 81-96.

Musella, M. (2020). La valutazione di impatto: versione forte e versione debole. Impresa Sociale, (4), 27–30.

Patton, M. Q. (2017). Pedagogical principles of evaluation: Interpreting Freire. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Pedagogy of evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, no. 155, pp. 49–77). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Stame, N. (2020). Valutazione d’impatto sociale. Committenti, Enti di Terzo Settore e valutatori. Impresa Sociale, (4), 54–60.

Venturi, P. (2019). La valutazione d’impatto sociale come pratica “trasformativa” (AICCON Short Paper 19/2019). AICCON.