Innovation Advisory · Framework 03

The Evidence Canvas

Eight questions about what counts as proof and for whom. They are for practitioners commissioning studies, reviewing reports, or deciding whether the evidence in front of them is worth acting on.

The audience

Who needs to be convinced, and what would they do differently if they were?

A district collector needs different proof from a journal reviewer. Name the specific person whose mind has to change.

The decision

What decision does this evidence feed? If no evidence would change the decision, why are you collecting it?

If the answer is ‘for the record’, the study is decoration, and an expensive one.

The counterfactual

What would have happened without the programme? Can you answer that truthfully?

This is the hardest question in evaluation. If you cannot answer it, say so in the report instead of pretending that you can.

The method

Does the method match the question, or does it match the funding call?

An RCT answers one kind of question well and other kinds badly. Pick the method that fits the question, even when a different method fits the budget line better.

The distance

Who collected the data, and how far are they from the person who will analyse it?

Bias builds up in the distance between the enumerator and the analyst. Shorten that distance or name it in the report.

The exclusion

What did you leave out? Which voices, which geographies, which seasons?

Every study has exclusions. Write yours on the first page, because someone less sympathetic will find the ones you hide.

The Monday test

Can a practitioner use this finding on Monday morning?

Evidence that nobody can act on was written for the wrong audience. If a finding only works as a conference slide, rewrite the conclusion.

The hostile read

Give the report to the person most likely to disagree. Does it survive?

If it survives, it is ready. If it does not, the fault lies in the report, so fix the report.

← Back to all frameworks