Summer Meeting of the “AK Demokratie” 2025

Conference Report: “When Practice Meets Theory”: Do We Need More Self-Evaluation in the Promotion of Democracy? // June 5, 2025 // Summer Conference of the Democracy Working Group (DeGEval) & PrEval Zukunftswerkstätten

On June 5 and 6, 2025, the Democracy Working Group of DeGEval held its fourth annual conference in cooperation with PrEval in Berlin. Once again, we addressed a question of growing importance in the fields of democracy promotion and extremism prevention: What role can and should self-evaluation play in these areas? The event, held at the German Center for Integration and Migration Research (DeZIM), brought together practitioners, researchers, evaluators, and funding institutions to exchange experiences and discuss new approaches.

Key Insights and Discussion Topics

Monitoring Self-Evaluation in Practice

A key focus of the conference was the presentation of current research on the dissemination and use of self-evaluation methods in practice. Ian Kattein and Andreas Uhl from the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence (IKG) presented findings from a nationwide survey on evaluation capacities. They outlined the conditions under which self-evaluation is perceived as beneficial and how such insights are applied in practical work.

The study highlighted both the potential and the challenges practitioners face when implementing self-evaluation procedures. It became clear that self-evaluation is increasingly seen not as an additional burden but as an opportunity for quality development and internal learning processes.

Diverse Perspectives from Practice

A panel discussion with practitioners and funders provided multifaceted insights into the application of self-evaluation methods. Pierre Asisi (ufuq.de) addressed challenges in historical-political education, while Toma El-Sarout (basa e.V.) shared practical experiences from digital youth work on climate change. Svetla Koynova from the Violence Prevention Network presented internal scientific approaches to self-evaluation in extremism prevention, complemented by funding perspectives from André Nagel (Federal Agency for Civic Education), and Timo Reinfrank (Amadeu Antonio Foundation).

The discussion underscored the need for self-evaluation to be context-specific, needs-oriented, and closely aligned with project practice. A central theme was the balance between external accountability, internal quality assurance, and formative development.

Success Factors and Quality Criteria

In her keynote, Dr. Susanne Giel elaborated on the conceptual foundations of effective self-evaluations. She emphasized the importance of clear definitions and placed self-evaluation within the broader historical context of evaluation and quality development. Noteworthy were the success factors she identified: adequate time and personnel resources, methodological competence, clear objectives, and an organizational culture that supports learning and reflection.

She warned against unrealistic expectations, stressing that self-evaluation is not a low-cost substitute for external evaluation but rather a complementary tool that offers specific advantages—especially direct access to practice-relevant information and the opportunity for continuous adaptation.

Innovative Approaches and Methods

Democracy Index as a Self-Evaluation Tool

A particularly practice-relevant approach was presented in the workshop on the Democracy Index. Developed by the Institute for Social Work and Social Education (ISS), this tool enables “Democracy Partnerships” within the federal program Living Democracy! to assess their own "democratic quality." The tool allows for both external and self-evaluation, offering quantitative comparison options at the program level and can be used for benchmarking.

Digital Challenges and Solutions

The workshop on digital education and prevention projects explored the unique opportunities and challenges of impact measurement in digital spaces. A toolbox of indicators for self-evaluation, developed as part of the Living Democracy! program evaluation, was also discussed. It became clear that traditional evaluation methods often fall short and that innovative approaches are needed to meet the specific characteristics of digital interventions.

Power-Critical Perspectives

A workshop on power-critical perspectives in self-evaluation addressed various levels of power: from funder-mandated self-evaluation to internal hierarchies and the question of whether individual participants can be required to engage in evaluation activities. The discussion made it evident that self-evaluation is not inherently more participatory or emancipatory than external evaluation; it must be intentionally designed to avoid replicating existing power structures.

Special Target Groups and Methodological Adjustments

Evaluation of Police Training

A concrete example of target group-specific adaptation was presented in the workshop on evaluating police training programs. The workshop showed how evaluation instruments need to be continuously developed and tailored to the specific needs of this group. The experiences highlighted both the potential and limitations of standardized evaluation tools.

Theory of Change in Self-Evaluation

Building trust with clients is a central focus of secondary and tertiary extremism prevention. The workshop on theories of change explored this as both an effect and a precondition of impact. Through small-group exercises, participants examined how relationship-building can be assessed as part of impact analyses—using methods such as reflective “journal notes.” This demonstrated the importance of a clear theory of change in designing effective self-evaluation.

Challenges and Outlook

The conference revealed that, despite many positive developments in self-evaluation, significant challenges remain:

Resources: Self-evaluation requires time, personnel, and methodological skills. Many organizations lack sufficient capacity. Practical approaches must be developed that fit the realities of civil society while still producing usable data.

Quality Assurance: How can self-evaluation be integrated into continuous quality assurance and formative development within projects and organizations? This requires securing time, personnel, and support structures within implementing organizations.

Integration with External Evaluation: How can the advantages of practice-oriented self-evaluation be combined with the strengths of external evaluation? External evaluators can support practitioners by offering training and co-developing self-evaluation strategies.

Reporting: How can self-evaluation findings be communicated externally, especially to funders? Funding institutions should offer clear guidelines and support.

Scientific Accompaniment: Practice often leads the way in terms of understanding mechanisms of change. Researchers and evaluators should be empowered to conceptualize insights from practice and publish them in both practitioner guides and academic journals.

Conclusion

The conference made it clear that self-evaluation is most effective when it is understood as an integral part of project work and quality development processes—and when it is adequately resourced. The diversity of approaches presented shows there is no single correct method; instead, context-specific solutions must be developed to match the objectives, target groups, project strategies, and institutional conditions. Continuous collaboration and knowledge exchange between practice and evaluation research are essential to further develop skills and insights and adapt them to emerging needs.

A detailed conference report has been published in the Zeitschrift für Evaluation (in German).