Author: Sophi Ducie, Senior Evaluation Lead, M·E·L Research
In this reflective blog, Sophi Ducie draws on practical experience to explore how participatory approaches can support evaluation and learning in complex systems. Using examples from Outcome Mapping and Ripple Effect Mapping, she considers how creating space for collective reflection can help make change visible as it unfolds.
Using participatory methods such as Outcome Mapping in co-designing evaluations and Ripple Effect Mapping
I am not writing about Outcome Mapping and Ripple Effect Mapping in a generic methods way, rather I am anchoring this piece on what I have learned from actually using them in real, messy, system-change work. For me, this is about showing how participatory methods change the evaluation and learning relationship in these complex systems.
I use Outcome Mapping as a conversational tool, rather than a technical framework. One that helps people articulate who matters, what change might look like in practice, and what progress feels like over time. Often those small jumps (think about Mario jumping on the pipes in the Nintendo game – until he gets to the flag at the finish) can really help us identify the small (super important) changes that can often be missed in linear non-participatory approaches.
Then you bring in Ripple Effect Mapping, not just as a data collection method, but as a learning and sense-making space, where impact can be named, recognised and connected – often for the first time. The number of times I have delivered Ripple Effect Mapping sessions, and people have left feeling completely empowered to be brought together in the same space is astonishing!
Used together, Outcome Mapping and Ripple Effect Mapping can form a joined-up participatory learning cycle: Outcome Mapping shapes what we pay attention to, and why; Ripple Effect Mapping helps us see what is actually happening as action unfolds.
Why is this all so important? Well, in complex system change work, participatory methods aren’t a bolt-on or a “nice to have”. They’re often the only way evaluation and learning remains meaningful, ethical and genuinely useful. Participation here isn’t about consultation for its own sake; it’s about sense making, shared ownership of learning, and challenging power dynamics and assumptions about what change should look like.
So this is a post from someone who has sat in rooms (and WhatsApp calls, community spaces, workshops) with multiple actors trying to make sense of change as it unfolds – and who has had to design evaluation approaches that don’t flatten that reality.
A case study without naming names…
In one programme, we worked with a number of regional teams to design and recommend future approaches to collecting and sharing learning, alongside evidence of early impacts. The evaluation began with Outcome Mapping workshops involving a range of stakeholders (so basically people). Because there was such a mix of knowledge and experience in the room, we chose not to start with indicators; rather, we focused on conversations about who the programme was really trying to influence (the sphere of influence), how change might show up in practice (sphere of change), and what ‘progress’ would look like before any final outcomes (this is Mario’s flag) were achieved. Boundary partners (again, the people) and progress markers (the green pipes Mario jumps on) gave people a shared language to describe behavioural and relational shifts they were already sensing, but hadn’t previously been asked to evidence.
As delivery unfolded, Ripple Effect Mapping sessions were used as structured learning spaces rather than end-of-project reflection exercises. Participants shared stories of what had changed, for whom, and why. Small-scale actions such as a new relationship, a shift in confidence, a change in how decisions were being made, etc. became visible when mapped together, revealing patterns and connections across the system that no single actor could see alone.
For those involved, it became part of how people collectively made sense of progress, challenged assumptions, and adapted their actions in real time.
So I end this blog with a question… How might evaluations change if we treated learning as a shared practice, not a product?
Our thanks to Sophi Ducie for this guest blog and for contributing their perspective to the UK Evaluation Society’s work.
How to cite this article
Ducie, S. (2026) Using participatory methods such as Outcome Mapping in co-designing evaluations and Ripple Effect Mapping. UK Evaluation Society blog. Available at: https://evaluation.org.uk/co-designing-evaluations-with-participatory-methods (Accessed: [insert date]).
Sophi Ducie
Sophi champions inclusive, community-led evaluation through co-design, storytelling, and participatory methods that drive meaningful change. She has led complex, multi-stakeholder evaluations at M·E·L Research since 2008, specialising in theory-based, participatory and developmental approaches for place-based and inclusion programmes. Her practice centres the voices of marginalised groups, using accessible, trauma-informed methods.
Sophi brings strong systems thinking to delivery contexts, blending Outcome Mapping, contribution analysis and realist CMO inquiry with practical action research cycles so partners can learn and adapt at pace. She is an experienced facilitator of cross-sector groups, translating evidence into clear recommendations for providers, employers and policy audiences. She also specialised in co-creation (co-design and co-production).
In 2025, Sophi was selected to present two research studies that explored using Participatory Approaches to Cultivate an Evaluation-Positive Culture. She provides methodological leadership, quality assurance and governance oversight, including ethics, safeguarding and data protection, and ensures the evaluation delivers credible, policy-relevant insight and an auditable chain of evidence.
