Welcome, Nur, can you tell us a bit about who you are and your professional background?

Before joining IOD PARC, I completed my PhD in Politics and International Relations, focusing on EU migration policy at the University of Edinburgh. While deciding whether to stay in academia or not, I did a consultancy in Libya with IOM. I really liked consulting, and decided I wanted to continue working as a consultant. By chance, I got to know about IOD PARC, who were also based in Edinburgh – so I reached out to them, and it turned out to be a match, so I have been working with them since 2014. Initially, I got involved in a number of MEL and organisational development projects that colleagues were delivering, and slowly but steadily, we started building our track record in migration-related work.

What does your work at IOD PARC focus on?

Nowadays, I work a lot on displacement, humanitarian response, and, to a lesser extent, migration management. I did a lot of work in the Middle East and North Africa region, focusing on Syria, Palestine, and Sudan. We have recently broadened our geographic focus to look at these subject areas globally with case studies in South-East Asia, East Africa and Latin America. Learning about displacement and humanitarian response dynamics in these different regions is very interesting. A lot of my work has an intersectoral component to it too. Displacement is, for example, often linked to aspects of education, livelihoods, health, etc. There are also usually strong intersectional components to the work, such as gender or social inclusion. This makes the field complex, but also very dynamic.

What have you learned through our work over the past few years?

I feel that over the past decade, Requests for Proposals and Terms of Reference have become much more specific in terms of the thematic experience they ask for than before. The team requirements go into real detail on the experience that team members need to have. At the same time, we have seen the complexity of what we evaluate evolve. There is a lot more emphasis on trying to bridge the gap between development and humanitarian programming and evaluating that transition. For us, this means we really need to think through and work with the client to understand what this transition means or should look like, because transitions come with a lot of assumptions that need to be integrated into the planning of interventions, and ultimately in evaluations. Finally, there is much more focus nowadays on how gender equality, disability, and social inclusion and protection are mainstreamed into programme design and implementation.

Can you give an example of how your work has impacted a client?

Sometimes it can be difficult to identify our impact, but for one of our clients, we did an assessment at the start of a programme targeting refugees and host communities a few years ago. At the time, we highlighted several things that could be improved in the logframe and Theory of Change, which would enhance their ability to monitor progress and improve effectiveness. Back then, the client was not able to make these changes because of donor requirements. However, when we did the endline evaluation, a lot of our predicted difficulties in terms of monitoring had materialised. They indicated they wished they had taken our initial recommendations on board, and this realisation then helped them to take our endline recommendations seriously. So sometimes you see that the work you have done previously can help further down the line.

To really have an impact, I think it is, first of all, essential to understand where the client is coming from and how this relates to what we, as external consultants, think the best approach to the evaluation is. We need to work with clients to understand their operating context and how they intend to use the evaluation, which is not always sufficiently clear from the Terms of Reference alone. Secondly, it is essential to be truly participatory in your approach while retaining independence. This approach leads to a more team-based process and product that is cognisant of the client’s needs and can be used better. Of course, this might not work with all clients or assignments, but when possible, it really helps to have an impact.

Looking back and forward, what has changed in this field over the past few years, and where do you see it going?

As I mentioned, evaluations are becoming more complex, and more is being asked of evaluators. At the same time, there is not always an acknowledgement of the implications of these increased requirements. For example, there is a push for more participatory and inclusive evaluation approaches, but the timelines of evaluations stay the same, as does the expected level of effort to complete the work. So, sometimes there is a bit of a disconnect between the increasingly complex demands and how expectations around this are handled in practice. That is not to say this change is a purely negative development – it is a push for us as evaluators to think beyond standard approaches and tick boxes, so I guess we have to strike a balance.

If you could design the perfect assignment for yourself, what would it look like and why?

I would like to do a large piece of work on protection. It’s not a jolly subject, considering it often looks at human rights violations and things like gender-based violence, child protection, and displacement. It is also not an easy subject because it touches on things like access to documentation and services, as well as civil rights. So, doing this carefully requires a lot from evaluators, which is another complexity in evaluating protection: where do our responsibilities as evaluators lie? When do we highlight issues we feel are right or wrong but fall outside our immediate scope of action? In an assignment like this, it would be great to consider different geographical regions and develop the approach with a full team of colleagues from each region to ensure the design really fits the objectives and is embedded in each context.

Is there anything else you would like to share?

I came into consulting from academia. Initially, it felt like a completely new start. However, in hindsight, I realise there were a lot of things that were transferable, with the main difference being that consulting is more dynamic and fast-paced. Consulting allows you to be creative and adaptive, which has helped me in my professional development. It brings some uncertainty but also many exciting opportunities.