Abstracts Call

Before submitting your abstract, please have a look at the Instructions for Submissions.

Helpdesk
Please contact us at abstracts@ees2020.eu in case you require any assistance.


The EES online abstract submission is now open. We invite you to submit your abstracts for presentations at the conference. The submission system will be open until 21 March 2020. Get ready to join us in Copenhagen!

New session formats are available. In addition to the classic presentation formats of panel, roundtable, poster and individual paper presentations, the EES also invites proposals in the following innovative formats: ‘Think Tank’ sessions, ‘Tools in Use, Changing Tools’, Birds of a Feather’ and ‘Fishbowl’ sessions. These formats are intended to ignite lively discussion and energise innovative thinking. Full information is provided below on the types of session format available together with details of how to prepare your abstracts.

All abstracts will be subjected to peer review on the basis of their technical quality and relevance to the evaluation community (see link for full description of the abstract evaluation criteria). Whilst relevance to the four themes of the conference (as detailed below) is not mandatory, it is strongly recommended. Please also note that there is a ceiling of a maximum of 3 abstracts that may be submitted by any individual.


The Conference Themes

Questions to be answered:

  • What makes evaluation valuable and how can evaluation maintain legitimacy in a world characterized by new challenges (complex problems)?
  • How can evaluation provide credible and insightful answers to global issues?
  • What can evaluation contribute to the debate on the Anthropocene?
  • How can evaluation support positive and forward-looking change?
  • What is the role of evaluators in solving complex problems?
  • What role can evaluators play in supporting a return to an evidence based or evidence supported environment?

Suggestedand hints to successfully address the theme.

  • This theme aims to allow presenters to address the bigger conceptual questions.
  • We invite presenters to keep to one issue of concern so that enough time is devoted to it.
  • Presenters should move away from a purely philosophical or very pessimistic view, rather focusing on providing constructive perspectives or solutions.

Questions to be answered:

  • What new ways of using tools and approaches (e.g. new ways of collecting, managing and understanding data) exist which can help us respond to the complex challenges we face?
  • How can new available data (e.g. big data; contextual/framing data; supporting qualitative data, etc) be used?
  • What methodological challenges do evaluators face and can expect to face which may not have been there before?
  • What are the practical and ethical implications of new tools for data collection, and analysis/interpretation and storage ?
  • What does the data that can now be collected allow evaluations to say/do?

Suggestedand hints to successfully address the theme.

  • This theme aims to allow presenters to focus on practical tools (share tools, discuss tools, etc) and on the practicalities of using these (can they be used, do they deliver the expected data, what are the ethical concerns).
  • We invite presenters to focus on a specific tool, approach and/or type of data. The focus should be on practice, not on theoretical discussions on data collection and use.
  • Presenters should focus on presenting an interesting way of using well-known tools to address uncertainty or suggest new tools.
  • Presenters should make a link between tools and challenges, identify main problems of using specific tools, and examine how these can be resolved.

Questions to be answered:

  • Are the approaches and criteria used in evaluation sufficient? Are they up to date? Are they accurate and comprehensive?
  • If they are not sufficient, current, comprehensive and/or accurate what is the responsibility of evaluators to contribute to their further development, refinement and or replacement?
  • Does the current agenda effectively respond to the challenges that evaluators/evaluations face?
  • Do evaluators have a responsibility to re-frame the way evaluations are conducted in view of the uncertain world faced? What space do evaluators have to do so? Which resources (including organized pressure from evaluation associations) can evaluation muster to act vis-à-vis evaluation commissioners, regulators, and users? Must evaluation move towards post-normal? And if so, what does this mean? Which other actors are there? How can evaluators interact with them in exploring these questions?

Suggestedand hints to successfully address the theme.

  • This theme is mainly about approaches to evaluation rather than about practical tools to conduct evaluations.
  • We invite presenters to focus on a single (or limited) number of approaches, try to highlight shortcomings and advantages and make suggestions or explore options that lead to practical solutions.
  • This theme is about the responsibility of evaluators. We invite presenters to focus on real world discussions.

Questions to be answered:

  • How can evaluations become an integral part of responding to the challenges of an uncertain world?
  • What role do evaluators, evaluation commissioners, and evaluation users have to ensure that criteria, approaches and tools are suited to the questions being answered?
  • Who has what responsibility? Who decides how and what data should be collected and how data should be analysed? How much of the process should be a negotiation between parties? Which other actors should be involved and how?
  • What role does budget, time constraints play in determining the robust nature of results?
  • How to ensure that Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) has a complementary role, rather than take over? Where is the balance?
  • What about cross cutting issues (criteria), what does their inclusion in evaluation mean for evaluators (affect evaluation questions, tools, other criteria and approaches)? What does inclusion of cross-cutting issues imply for donors and implementers? How does evaluation address the inclusion of these issues at a programmatic level? Which are competing interests? How can they be addressed?

Suggestedand hints to successfully address the theme.

  • Evaluators are not alone in the evaluation word; this theme is about the relationships between evaluators and other key actors.
  • We invite presenters to suggest concrete points of discussion that focus on specific aspects of the different roles and how these can better respond to current challenges (uncertain world).
  • Good discussion will ensue from a focus on successes (evaluations that were widely used/impactful) and from comparison with experiences where evaluations were not useful or impactful. Presenters should explore what made the difference and what factors can support the improved use of evaluations in future.

Modalities

The EES has decided to introduce a number of new modalities for presentations and engagement between conference participants for the 2020 conference in Copenhagen. We therefore invite Authors/presenters to explore the different options and identify one that they feel best fits the objective they are pursuing.


Papers: Individuals wishing to present a paper on an individual basis. These are papers that are not part of a panel. Paper presenters will be asked if they want to chair/be discussants. Papers will be placed within a panel by conference organizers.

a) Concise professional biography of all contributor (within 50 words)
b) Titles of their contribution
c) Abstract of the paper that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

d) Specify of how the paper corresponds to the theme
e) Key words

Note: General observations: We would encourage paper presenters to put together their own panels as we feel that this way papers will be best matched to each other, but of course we will also be willing to do that.


Panels: This modality follows the presentation of single papers. Each panel will include 3-4 paper presentations and a chair.

a) should include 3-4 paper presentations and a discussant.
b) Concise professional biography of all contributors (within 50 words)
c) Title of the session
d) For each paper the guidelines for papers should also be met.
e) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
f) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Round tables: This modality is more flexible than papers, can include short presentations, but generally focused on a discussion held by different key individuals on the panel and driven by a discussant. Each panel should include 3-4 paper presentations and a discussant. Authors/contributors cannot propose a topic for a panel as individual contributions. Rather a panel must include all elements.

a) At least one person to introduce and a minimum of 2-3 discussants.
b) Concise biographies of all round-table participants (within 50 words each)
c) Titles of their respective contributions
d) Abstract of the roundtable that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

e) Specify of how the paper corresponds to the theme
f) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
g) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Think tank sessions: These are sessions where a single presentation will be done - some 15 minutes, then key questions will be introduced and individual groups will be asked to examine specific questions. The objectives of these sessions is for discussion to follow specific topic or aspects of a topic and generate clear ideas/thoughts etc. These will be working sessions where presenters can make active use of their audience to further their specific discussions on a subject.

a) Concise professional biography of all contributors. This can be 1 or more people (within 50 words)
b) Titles of the contribution
c) Abstract of the roundtable that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

d) Specify what the session will be focusing on, what the author expects to achieve with the session
e) Specify how you expect to organize the session (break out working groups, mini fishbowl, etc)
f) Specify of how the session corresponds to the theme
g) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
h) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Tools in use, changing tools: These sessions should focus on a presentation of a tool or tool set. These sessions will focus on sharing practical skills and potentially delving into discussions on challenges and modification. Presenters can also identify key questions on how the tools can be used, challenges faced etc. These can include one or more presenters and the format can be upon to the presenters. Importantly, it is a way of highlighting methodological tools.

a) Concise professional biography of all contributors (within 50 words), minimum 1 person
b) Titles of the session
c) Abstract of the session that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

d) Specify what the session will be focusing on, what the author expects to achieve with the session
e) Specify of how the session corresponds to the theme
f) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
g) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Fishbowl: This type of session is best served for the discussion of issues surrounding a common theme, rather than the presentation of papers. The objective is to bring together different perspectives or points of view surrounding a single subject. The modality should include a brief introduction by starting participants, and a moderator. Min 4-max 6, moderator, a presenter, 2 start discussant to frame the discussion. Contributions to fishbowls must be introduced as a single even and include all participants.

a) At least one person to moderate, a second to introduce and a minimum of 2 discussants should be included.
b) Concise biographies of all members of the fishbowl team (within 50 words each)
c) Titles of the fishbowl
d) Abstract of the fishbowl that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

e) Specify of how the paper corresponds to the theme
f) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
g) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Birds of a feather: Informal group that comes together to discuss a specific topic. The sessions will allow for all participants to introduce each other and hold informal discussions surrounding a specific topic. There are no presentations. They require 1 or 2 people who would like to discuss a specific subject and for them to propose the subject and detail some of the issues they want to cover.

a) Concise professional biography of all contributors. This can be 1 or more people (within 50 words)
b) Titles of the contribution
c) Abstract of the roundtable that is being proposed (max 500 words)

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

d) Specify what the session will be focusing on, what the author expects to achieve with the session
e) Specify of how the session corresponds to the theme
f) Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)
g) Consent with publication of final presentation if one is shared (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)


Posters:

a. Presenting author's name (eventually co-authors' names and email addresses)
b. Presenting author’s concise professional biography (within 50 words)
c. Strand specification (please do not forget to mark the strand into which your abstract fits the best)
d. Preferred presentation type (poster)
e. Willingness to chair any session (if interested, please specify its topic)
f. Willingness to submit a full paper
g. Consent with publication of final presentation/ poster (will be published on the conference website to stay available for the Conference delegates)
h. Title (title should not contain more than 20 words; each word should be capitalized, please do not use standard abbreviations)
i.The abstract text itself should not exceed 500 words and should reflect the following points:

1) Rationale
2) Objectives sought
3) Brief narrative and justification (with regards to the review criteria above)

j. Up to 10 keywords for each abstract (5 as a minimum required count)


General information

You will be able to submit abstracts via our online system from the beginning of January, 2020 to 21 March, 2020. Abstracts MUST be submitted electronically (via the online system) by the deadline of 21 March, 2020. Abstracts submitted by fax or by email CANNOT be accepted.

Abstracts received after the submission deadline cannot be accepted and therefore will not be considered for the programme or for publication.

Submission of an abstract does not guarantee its acceptance. All abstracts are peer reviewed by highly experienced evaluators with expertise in publication for peer reviewed journals, book writing etc. The criteria for the abstract review are available HERE.

All presenters of accepted abstracts are expected to have financial resources to cover all expenses related to the Conference: registration fee, travel and accommodation charges (except for bursary applicants).

By submitting the abstract, the author authorizes the organizer to publish his/her abstract in the Conference proceedings.

Resubmittal of already submitted abstracts can only be done before the deadline of 21 March, 2020.


Abstract formatting

All abstracts must be written in English. (Should your abstract be accepted for a presentation you must be able to give your presentation in English and answer the questions from the audience.)

Abstracts should contain no more than 500 words. The system will automatically let you know whether or not you have complied with this rule.

Tables and figures cannot be inserted.

When you submit, PLEASE BE SURE TO CHOOSE THE MOST APPROPRIATE THEME AND THE MOST APPROPRIATE MODALITY.



Conference Secretariat: C-IN, 5. kvetna 65, 140 21 Prague 4, CZE | tel.: +420 261 174 301 | fax: +420 261 174 307
Home | Sitemap | info@ees2020.eu | Copyright © 2019 ees2020.eu
Powered and created by E-WORKS - web studio