Johanna Pennarz bids farewell to IOE

Johanna Pennarz bids farewell to IOE

After life spent working in the development sector, much of which as an evaluator, the time has come for Johanna Pennarz to venture into the greener pastures of retirement. As one of the office’s Lead Evaluation Officers, Johanna made a strong contribution to the work of IOE during her ten-year stint with the office. Throughout the years, colleagues have appreciated her practical, hands on and no-nonsense approach to life. While she will certainly be missed, we wish her all the very best for this new exciting chapter, and for all that lies ahead.

Thank you for taking the time to share a few last thoughts, Johanna.

My pleasure, Alexander

How many years have you served with IOE, and what was the career path that brought you to this office ?

I have been with IOE for ten years. Before that I was an evaluator and a researcher working on rural poverty. I lived in a village for one year in China and in village for another year Taiwan, where I really learned from farmers how they think and deal with the lack of assets and income. In particular, in China, I was in a very poor and deprived area that was not open to foreigners at that time. The result was a groundbreaking study on escaping poverty traps. Thereafter, I joined a UK-based consulting company where I learned everything about evaluation. I also worked in Uganda for three years, in the office of the Prime Minister. Through this experience, I learned a lot about the political economy of evaluation. As a result, I was already a fully-formed evaluator when I joined IOE, which was not always the norm at that time.

What do you feel most proud of during your time with IOE?

My aim has never been to write the world’s best evaluation report that creates a lot of noise. Instead, I have always focused on trying to contribute, over time, to a better IFAD and a better IOE. As such, I always saw my role as facilitating learning and nudging small, incremental changes, demonstrating what has worked and what hasn’t. Obviously, there have been some reports that have been more influential, such as the gender synthesis report that was widely received within and outside IFAD, including across the UN, to the extent that it became an international best practice. Most recently, I was the lead author of the corporate level evaluation on knowledge management, which is being widely read. I have also been involved in leading country strategy and programme evaluations (CSPEs). However, in the case of CSPEs, we have to be realistic as per the extent to which we can influence the design of programmes that already may have a lot of benchmarks in place.

The second part, which I am very proud of, is that I have successfully supported many young evaluators during my time with IOE. Over the years, many young evaluators joined IOE and have grown very much since then.

What has been the biggest challenge that you have overcome whilst working for IOE?

The challenge that I found most difficult to deal with was the narrowly defined parameters of the different evaluation products, as codified by the Evaluation Manual. A very standardized approach is useful when you have new evaluators. It can help to ensure that there is consistency in the production of reports across the board. However, personally, I found this restrictive. I am deeply convinced that we need a diversity of products for evaluation to be useful. These should be tailored also to the interest of out stakeholders. For this reason, I enjoyed most doing work on synthesis reports that are less codified and have a clear focus on learning. The challenge with these is, however, that you need first hand evidence. This means that if you produce too many, you risk churning out the same information from the same pool of evidence.

What will you miss the most about IOE?

Certainly, the people. IOE is a really fine office, the way it is now. I must say that the new Director has played a major role in this regard. IOE now has wonderful people that are all very committed to the cause of IFAD. I also really like the diversity of people, from different nations and with different backgrounds. That’s something that I definitively miss already.

Looking forward, what is the most significant lesson that you have learned or skill that you have acquired with IOE that you think will help you to make a difference in your future endeavours?

The first important learning that I take away is that evaluation is political. When I was in IFAD, I really experienced this and understood that evaluation is set in a political context. We are independent, yes, but we are not outside of stakeholder power relations. For instance, looking outside IOE, we can see that certain types of evaluations and evaluation methodologies are being promoted and received based on stakeholder interests and dynamics. Examples may include the global discourse on decolonizing evaluation, which is justified and important, but also clearly serves certain interests. Societies in the South are not homogeneous. The priority is that disadvantaged people get a voice. Another example may include impact evaluation, which appears to be on the rise, and is often times mandated by donors who are eager to see impact on the ground tied to their financial contributions. The main problem with the latter is that it is shortsighted in as far as it does not recognize that in order for people to escape from poverty, they need a holistic developmental approach, not a siloed set of measurable interventions.

In essence, evaluation is supposed to contribute to the knowledge that we have on how development works. For this to truly happen, we need a diversity of evaluation types, products, methods and approaches. There is no one individual approach that is the best.

Any final words?

I really hope that we can embrace openness to types and approaches evaluation and diversity of knowledges needed to inform decisions and change in IFAD and beyond. It will be a challenge, but this is what I hope.

Thank you very much, Johanna.

You’re most welcome, Alexander