Abstract
It was 2005. My first American Evaluation Association (AEA) Board meeting. I noticed him immediately. Tall and handsome. Smart and wise. Confident, at times even near-arrogantly so, yet also humble. Critical yet empathetic, but with little tolerance for foolish ideas. His deep laugh reverberating across our serious meetings when his brilliant sense of humor had us all in stitches.
An outstanding personality among an extraordinary group of (mostly new) professional friends with whom I shared AEA Board membership over the next 2–3 years—people like Mel Mark, Jennifer Greene, Leslie Goodyear, Sharon Rallis, Hallie Preskill, Rodney Hopson, Bill Trochim, Huilan Yang, Melanie Hwalek, Hazel Simonette, Craig Russon.
And Thomas “Tom” Schwandt.
Already at that first meeting his sensitivity shone through. He noticed my initial unease as the first evaluator ever on the AEA Board living outside North America, and as South African also the first from the Global South. Coffee? he said. Sharing anecdotes. Musing about life and work. Throwing intellectual challenges at me.
It was the beginning of a friendship that stretched across assignments, advisory board meetings, conferences, and dialogues. And whenever our work brought us together across continents, sharing multiple delectable meals, and top-quality champagne and red wine, often as a foursome with his lovely partner Sherry and my equally lovely husband. Very soon Tom and he became great friends, with deeply philosophical and insightful one-on-one conversations accompanied by much fun and laughter.
“You should come to Africa, and to Asia,” I said. “From what you tell me it seems as if this is where the greatest challenges but also greatest opportunities for evaluation lie,” he replied. And so with remarkable generosity he brought his philosophical clarity to his advisory role as member of the International Evaluation Advisory Panel of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Former Director Indran Naidoo recalled in his recent tribute the value of Tom's strategic, methodological, and substantive guidance that allowed the many evaluations IEO led in the Global South to "benefit immensely" from his wisdom.
We were together on this UNDP Panel for 7 years. I remember that Tom's advice was never merely technical; it was grounded in a commitment to democratic pluralism, deliberative dialogue, and the belief that evaluation should serve justice. He always centered humanity. Listened deeply. Questioned gently. Synthesized insightfully. He reminded us that evaluation was not a technical exercise, but a moral practice.
Tom was also a consummate scholar and researcher, which made it a pleasure—and fun—to work with him between 2012 and 2014 on assignment for the Canadian International Development Research Centre to evaluate their approaches and develop a systems-informed way to assess the quality of development research. Together, we established the Research Quality Plus (RQ+) framework and rubric-based assessment instrument, since used in significant research planning and evaluation efforts around the world.
I most appreciated Tom's exceptional clarity of thought and ability to articulate complex ideas in ways that resonated with people. This is very well reflected in “Evaluation Foundations Revisited,” one of my favorite evaluation texts. In it, Tom extends a powerful invitation: cultivate "a life of the mind for practice," where technical competence is inseparable from moral, ethical, and political reflection on what evaluation does in the world. He rejected value-free science and called for practical wisdom: the capacity to work in uncertainty, weigh competing values, deliberate through argument, and give reasoned judgments in contested settings. He urged critical examination of how we define value, use evidence, relate to politics, and uphold integrity. Theoretical knowledge was not something simply “applied,” but a living resource for judgment in context. For him, evaluation was never mechanical method-application. It was disciplined wisdom, grown through sustained engagement with theory, philosophy, and those “indeterminate zones of practice” where rules run out and thoughtful discretion becomes essential.
I know that our many discussions also influenced Tom's widely appreciated keynote at the 2018 European Evaluation Society conference, where he cautioned that “normal evaluation”—closely aligned with modern, delivery-mode governance and assumptions of relatively stable policy environments—was increasingly inadequate for today's conditions of uncertainty, complexity, urgency, and contested values. He highlighted “post-normal evaluation” as an emerging orientation that privileges systems and complexity thinking, practical reasoning over purely technical rationality, and the coproduction of knowledge and value with citizens and stakeholders rather than expert-only judgment. He admitted early signals of change but closed by emphasizing the urgency with which we need to fully realize this shift.
My husband and I will remember you, Tom, not only for your erudite wisdom and razor-sharp mind, for your warmth, for much laughter, for our shared appreciation of excellent red wine, and love of scallops. But also for the way you made space for uncertainty, honored diverse perspectives, and mentored with unwavering kindness. For the privilege to share in your beautiful wedding to Sherry, to see your love for each other, and to enjoy your company on multiple fun-filled, thought-provoking occasions.
You insisted that a central question of evaluation is not "Did it work?" but "Given what we know and what we can imagine, what should we do now?"
Indeed, what should we do now, Tom? You leave our field richer for your presence, but you were one of those giants we thought would always be with us. It is extraordinarily hard to accept that you have left, that the world will never benefit again from the clarity of your thought and the good you have done so quietly for so many.
In his exquisite video tribute, Michael Quinn Patton evokes you as a formative pioneer in the professionalization of evaluation and, crucially, as a “moral compass” for the field—someone who repeatedly brought ethical responsibility and service to the common good back to the center of professional discourse. You reminded us that evaluation, at its best, is an act of care, a disciplined, reflective, and deeply human effort to ask better questions, listen more fully, and imagine more just futures.
All we can do now is honor you by carrying forward these ideas, and your spirit, toward the better world you wanted.
But you will be missed for a very long time.
