When Vanilla Ice Meets M&E: A Language Conundrum

If you were a teenager in the early nineties like I was (talking about the previous century here), you probably remember Vanilla Ice and his hit single "Ice Ice Baby". According to Wikipedia, it was the first hip hop single to reach number one on the US Billboard Hot 100. Yes, I'm surprised too. Building on the initial hype, Vanilla Ice had another relatively successful single, "Rollin' in My 5.0", which was often played on MTV and radio stations at the time. This song, just like Vanilla Ice's overall opus, was not one of my favourites, but nevertheless stayed with me for decades. Basically, with "Rollin' in My 5.0", I became aware that in some parts of the world, people use a point rather than a comma as a decimal separator. At that moment, it was just a fun fact, but over time it became useful knowledge.

Working in the area of monitoring and evaluation is inseparable from writing reports and presenting data. Even though I live and work in Serbia ("from Serbia" is probably a better formulation), almost all of my work is in English. However, being able to write in English is not only about knowing the language but also about small details like which decimal separator to use. To be honest, it still doesn't come to me naturally; almost every time, I have to pause and think if it's a point or a comma. To avoid confusion, I usually apply what I call the Vanilla Ice rule, namely recalling the "Rollin' in My 5.0" lyrics to check if I have used the right separator—point, not a comma.

One would expect that I apply the Vanilla Ice rule in the opposite direction too, when I write reports in Serbian, again to be sure if the proper decimal separator has been used. Normally, that would be a fair assumption, but the fact is that I've never written an evaluation report in my own language. I don't have exact data, but my informed guess is that the vast majority of reports done by Serbian evaluators or about programs in Serbia are written in English.

In many countries, demands for evaluations come from multilateral organizations, the international donor community, and big development and aid organizations. In this bubble, English is the lingua franca, so it's not a huge surprise that English also dominates evaluation thinking and practice. The great thing about it is that English facilitates the exchange of ideas and cooperation among evaluators across the world, which definitely strengthens the overall evaluation community. However, the devil is in the details. While its overall usefulness is undeniable, the question is: can we fully rely on English to build local evaluation systems and culture? Is English enough, or does it, at some point, become a burden and hindering factor? And it's not only about English. The Decolonising National Evaluation Systems study (Goldman et al. 2024) focused on South Africa and Benin found that evaluation reports are written in the official language—English (SA) and French (Benin)—but not translated into local languages, which makes them less inclusive and accessible to the community and wider public.

Thinking about the English language dominance in evaluation and its consequences for local evaluation culture is not new to me. Back in 2014, I started a small, unpretentious blog on evaluation in Serbian (a language also understandable to many across Western Balkans countries). At that time, I was still relatively new to evaluation and wanted to share the "good news" with people who could potentially be interested and benefit from it, mainly professionals in the public and civil sectors. My enthusiasm was also fuelled by some gaps I identified and wanted to address.

Ten years ago, there were no evaluation resources written in Serbian. The existing literature in English and other languages had not been translated, while local authors were not interested in the topic. Few sporadic efforts to publish something in Serbian were rather project-based outputs than part of some broader strategy to build local knowledge in evaluation. Beyond resources, there was also a huge gap in capacities. In most cases, M&E was the last session of the PCM training, usually scheduled after lunch. At the same time, the overall project culture was more about activities and budget execution than results and change. The evaluation culture was not even a term, while VOPEs across Western Balkans were still in the early-early stage.

In such a context, my blogging on monitoring and evaluation basics in the local language was kind of a pioneering work. Of course, it was not sufficient to address all these issues, probably not even necessary, but I would like to think it was needed.

Has something changed since then? Yes, it has. Understanding of evaluation and overall M&E capacities have improved, there is more interest in the topic, various evaluation resources in local languages have been published, and thanks to the group of devoted colleagues across the region, VOPEs are in much better shape ( Bojan Radej Sumpor Marijana Vlatko Danilov svetlana stanarevic Mihajlo Djukic I'm looking at you). However, demands for evaluations are still largely driven by the international donor community and development organizations. English continues to dominate our evaluation work (you're reading this in English, aren't you?), while local capacity building, regional and local professional networking, and publishing in local languages are mainly project-based and/or rely on personal efforts of dedicated individuals. Basically, we are in limbo between external demands, English language dominance, and the desire to be part of the broader evaluation community on one side, and local ownership and growth on the other.

I recently mentioned that my recurring New Year's resolution is to write more. Essentially, it was about reviving my evaluation blog, but I ended up writing in English. Of course, these two don't exclude each other, so let's say I made a first step.

Think globally, act locally is a century-old concept, but still relevant in many spheres, including evaluation. We are and should be part of the global evaluation network, but change is happening in a certain context which comes with specific heritage, dynamics, and culture, language included. Learning from and with others is necessary, but building truly relevant and inclusive local evaluation systems, culture, and knowledge equally accessible to all is only possible in our own languages.

Once the problem is identified, as I've tried to do here, the question becomes: what can be done to strengthen local evaluation thinking and practice? I don't have a definitive solution, but I can offer a few thoughts. Firstly, it's not something one person alone can do. Local, regional, and global networks and support are essential. Fortunately, structures like IOCE and VOPEs already exist, and the issue of national evaluation capacities and culturally responsive evaluation systems is already on the agenda. Secondly, mobilising allies, building bridges and working together with all interested parties is a must. Evaluation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is part of the wider interconnected system. Thirdly, this is a long process, so miracles won't happen anytime soon. Change is slow but possible, so we should intentionally work towards it. Finally, it's up to us local evaluators to do it - if not us, then who?

For me, this means renewing my vows to write more, but also reconnecting with the journey I started 10 years ago by refreshing the blog and writing about evaluation in Serbian. Not much, but a good start.