UK Evaluation Society conference 2027
Call for abstracts
Evaluation Frontiers and Futures
18-20 May 2027, London
Call for abstracts
Different perspectives.
New possibilities for evaluation.
Bring your thinking to the conversation.
Learn about submitting an abstract for our 2027 conference, Evaluation Frontiers and Futures and be part of the conversations exploring where evaluation is heading next.
Submitting an abstract
What you need to know
Thinking about submitting an abstract? Here is what you need to know before you get started.
Abstracts submissions portal now open!
Submission deadline: 31 October 2026 at 11.59pm GMT
We will keep this section updated as plans develop. The information below is correct at the time of publication, but some conference details may change. Please check back for the latest information.
We welcome contributions from across civil society, central and local government, the wider public sector, private sector, and academia, including students, from the UK and internationally.
You can submit up to three abstracts as the lead presenter. There is no set limit on how many abstracts you can be involved in as a co-presenter.
However, when putting together the final programme, we will aim to limit each person to one lead presentation and one additional appearance as a co-presenter. This will help us make space for a diverse range of topics, perspectives and speakers.
Presentations for the Festival of the Unexpected (Online day) will be selected from the main Call for Abstracts. If you would prefer to present online, simply select this as your preferred presentation format when submitting your abstract.
This will indicate that you would like your submission to be considered for the virtual Festival of the Unexpected.
We receive many strong submissions each year, and those most likely to be successful make a clear connection to conference themes and bring something distinctive. We are looking for original contributions that connect to Evaluation Frontiers and Futures and help explore where evaluation is heading next.
See Conference abstract review framework for in-depth guidance.
Your abstract should relate to at least one of our four themes:
- Innovating Practice
New methodologies, AI and emerging technologies, and relational or participatory approaches that could change how evaluation is carried out.
- Everyone in the Place
New approaches to joined-up evaluation under devolved government, and the role evaluation can play in driving local change.
- Evolving Profession
How we support the skills, capabilities and career pathways needed for people who commission, deliver and use evaluation.
- Open Frontier
Speculative, cross-cutting or boundary-pushing contributions that challenge established thinking and advance evaluation in new directions.
We welcome submissions that bring a new perspective, test an emerging idea, challenge current practice or share an experience others could learn from.
- Oral presentation. Up to three related oral presentations will be grouped together and followed by a panel Q&A. Presentations will be Pecha Kucha style: 20 slides, 20 seconds per slide.
- Poster: A1, one-sided poster in portrait or landscape format. Optional templates will be available.
- World Café: a moderated discussion bringing together different perspectives.
- Workshop: an interactive session involving participation and small-group discussions.
- Meet the Author: a presentation and discussion based on a published article or book.
Grouped oral presentations: If you're proposing a themed group of up to three related Oral Presentations (Pecha Kucha style), each with a different presenter, please submit each abstract individually and email us with the three titles. This will allow the reviewers to consider each abstract on its own merits, while also assessing whether the presentations could work together as a panel.
World Café sessions:
Workshops and World Café sessions will typically accommodate around 40–50 participants and last between 60 and 90 minutes, depending on where they sit within the programme. Standard presentation equipment, including screens, audio and laptops, will be provided. If you have any additional technical or equipment requirements, please let us know in advance.
These formats will be considered for the main in-person conference, as well as the Festival of the Unexpected and Methods Festival. You can select either format when submitting your abstract. We would normally expect the person submitting the abstract to facilitate the session, but you can indicate if you would like to propose someone else.
Feedback from speakers and delegates at our 2026 conference was overwhelmingly clear: with so much evaluation expertise and experience gathered in one place, people wanted more time to discuss, question and debate what they were hearing.
So that is what we are building into the 2027 programme.
Oral presentations in 2027 will follow a Pecha Kucha-style format, with shorter, focused presentations grouped by theme and followed by an extended discussion involving presenters and delegates.
This approach is intended to provide more time for critical discussion, the exploration of different perspectives and consideration of the implications for evaluation research, policy and practice.
The change in format does not alter the status or academic standing of an accepted oral presentation. All abstracts will continue to undergo the same review and selection process, with each assessed on its individual merits. Accepted contributions remain oral presentations at the UK Evaluation Society's annual conference and can be referenced as such in academic CVs, professional profiles and records of scholarly activity.
By allocating more time to discussion, we aim to support more substantive engagement with the work presented, while maintaining the academic and professional value of contributing to the conference programme.
The online portal will ask for:
- abstract title
- names and email addresses of any co-speakers
- a short abstract of fewer than 50 words
- the conference theme most relevant to your proposal
- your preferred presentation format
- a longer abstract or session description of up to 500 words, which should include:
- the objectives of your session
- your proposal's contribution to evaluation and/or innovative evaluation content
- describe any ethical angles and/or relevance to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
Submit your proposal through the online portal. You can save your progress, return to your submission and make changes before submitting.
Yes. You are welcome to reference your organisation, a particular tool or other relevant products and services in your abstract. Each submission is assessed by multiple reviewers, who are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest as part of the review process.
Your abstract should:
- connect to the main conference theme and at least one of the four themes
- further evaluative practice and contribute to the field
- offer original or innovative content, perspectives or approaches
- explain what conference participants will hear, explore or take away.
All abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by an independent panel of specialists.
You can select your preferred format when submitting and we will do our best to accommodate your choice. Final decisions will be made by the conference committee and session chairs so that related ideas can be brought together and each contribution works well within the wider programme.
Submit your abstract by 31 October 2026 at 11.59pm GMT.
We will contact you during January 2027 to let you know the outcome. If your abstract is selected, we will also confirm its place in the programme, the presentation format and what happens next.
Speakers have two opportunities to save on their conference ticket. If you already know you would like to join us in London, Super Early Bird tickets offer the best available value, with a 20% saving on the standard ticket price. Super Early Bird tickets are available until 23 December 2026 and numbers are limited, so we recommend booking early to secure this price.
If you would prefer to wait until you know whether your abstract has been accepted, Early Bird tickets will be available from 4 January until 31 March 2027 and offer a 10% saving. If your abstract is selected, you will need to book your conference ticket by 1 February 2027 to confirm your place in the programme.
If you have questions about submitting an abstract for the conference, please contact our team at conference@evaluation.org.uk using the subject line: Call for abstract enquiry
Conference abstract review framework
This guidance is intended to ensure that successful abstracts advance practice, are credible, engage the audience, enrich discourse with fresh thinking and maintain ethical standards.
Innovating
practice
New methodologies,
AI and emerging technologies, relational and participatory approaches.
Everybody in the place
New approaches to joined-up evaluation under devolved government, driving local change.
Evolving
profession
Supporting skills, capabilities and pathways for the people who commission, deliver and use evaluation.
Open
frontier
Speculative, cross-cutting and boundary-pushing contributions that advance evaluation.
This guidance sets out what we are looking for in a strong conference abstract. It emphasises relevance to practice, a balance between methodological rigour and practical significance, innovation, clear communication, and inclusion.
Our reviewers will use this guidance when anonymously scoring submitted abstracts. Speaking slots at the UK Evaluation Society conference are competitive, and each year we have to make difficult choices. Even very high-quality abstracts cannot be guaranteed a place in the programme.
We are grateful to everyone who takes the time to submit an abstract. Your contributions help us maintain the quality of our conference and, in turn, support the quality of evaluation.
Assessment criteria - Five-Criterion Scoring System
Criterion
Weight
Score 1-5
Significance and Impact
30%
Importance and potential influence
Rigour and credibility
25%
Methodological
Communication
20%
Clarity and completeness, accessibility
Originality and Innovation
15%
Novelty beyond existing practice
Ethical angle/EDI
10%
Ethical, and inclusive where possible
We also have a simple question of: Is it relevant to the conference theme?
Criterion 1: Significance and Impact (30% - Highest weight)
What it assesses: The importance of the work to evaluation practice and its potential to influence policy, practice, or research.
Scoring considerations:
- Does this address an important problem or gap in evaluation practice?
- Could findings influence policy decisions, programme design, or future research?
- Is the scope appropriately ambitious?
- Would practitioners, policymakers, or researchers benefit from these insights?
Criterion 2: Rigour and Credibility (25% - Second highest weight)
What it assesses: Rigour, appropriateness of methods, trustworthiness of data and interpretation, acknowledgement of limitations, and demonstrated expertise.
Scoring considerations:
- Are methods appropriate for the research questions?
- Is the study design or analytical framework sound?
- Can we trust the data and interpretation?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
- Does the abstract demonstrate methodological expertise (not author reputation)?
Criterion 3: Communication (20%)
What it assesses: Quality and clarity of writing, logical organisation, adequate information provided, accessibility of communication.
Scoring considerations:
- Are objectives, methods, and findings clearly articulated?
- Is organisation logical?
- Is length appropriate with sufficient detail?
- Is writing accessible without jargon overload?
- Does the abstract indicate willingness to draw on the expertise or experience of those in the room?
Criterion 4: Originality and Innovation (15%)
What it assesses: Whether the work offers genuinely novel insights, methods, or applications beyond incremental improvements to existing practice.
Scoring considerations:
- Does this present new methods, frameworks, or approaches?
- Is this a fresh application of techniques to new contexts?
- Does it offer novel insights or perspectives?
- Can we distinguish transformative innovation from incremental improvement?
Criterion 5: Ethics and EDI (10%)
What it assesses: Whether the work is itself ethical and inclusive in the methods used, and offers insights that can drive greater equity in the commissioning, planning, implementing and reporting of evaluation projects.
Scoring considerations:
- Has the author considered ethical issues as part of the work?
- Does it promote equity and inclusion by giving a voice to those who may have been left out by some forms of evaluation and research, and encourage
- participation by all communities, where appropriate?
- Does it highlight and/or challenge potential bias in the process or the data?
- Does it use approaches that are valid across different cultures, such as more diverse storytelling approaches or data from different sources and perspectives?
Past conferences
