What is Simplifying?
Recently, I was watching a video (link below) on how to make the best Dauphinoise Potatoes (because, let’s face it, they’re the best), and the chef in the video said something that stuck with me.
He said “Good doesn't mean complicated, it means done well.”
This is the principle that guides me, and how I believe research and evaluation should be.
Image: Youtube >How to Cook Dauphinoise Potatoes Like a Chef> by Fallow
Misconceptions
When people hear the word simplifying, they often worry it means ‘making things basic’, ‘cutting corners’, or ‘not doing things properly’.
That’s not what simplifying means, at least not here.
Simplifying is not about doing less thinking. It’s about doing the thinking well, and then explaining it clearly.
Let me share a few examples…
In cooking…
When a top chef explains a recipe, they don’t list every chemical reaction happening in the pan. They don’t start by talking about protein denaturation or Maillard reactions.
They say: “Heat the pan. Add oil. Cook the onions until soft.”
The process underneath is complex, the explanation is simple. Describing the complexity can come later.
That’s not dumbing down. That’s good communication.
Evaluation is the same. The thinking behind a good evaluation… about causality, evidence, bias, and interpretation… is complex. But the language doesn’t have to be.
In travelling…
A map doesn’t show you every tree, lamp post, or road marking. It shows you what you need to get where you’re going. That’s simplification.
It’s not inaccurate. It’s selective, purposeful, and useful. A map with too much detail makes it harder to see a clear path.
A Theory of Change should work in the same way. It’s not meant to capture every possible influence in the world. It’s meant to show the main pathway for how your work is expected to lead to change.
Simplifying a Theory of Change means focusing on what matters, not pretending the rest doesn’t exist.
In teaching…
My favourite teacher in school was called Mr Rankin-McCabe, and he taught humanities. Mr Rankin-McCabe didn’t start with complicated things to sound clever, he told stories. Live the story of what was being taught, and complexity comes later.
He started where the Year 9s were in front of him, not where the textbook was.
That’s what ‘simplification’ is doing in evaluation. It’s helping people see what’s going on, not prioritising using jargon. And in a sense, evaluation is telling stories.
In practice
So what are some clear steps for ‘simplifying’ in evaluation? It means:
Using clear words instead of technical ones when they mean the same thing
Focusing on what matters most, not everything that could possibly matter
Making the logic visible, not hidden in paragraphs of text
Being able to choose the level of complexity and detail that works for you, not having it being dictated to you
Here’s an example. We can turn:
“Intermediate outcome pathways mediated by contextual moderators”
into:
“What changes first, what changes later, and what might affect that?”
Same idea, but more accessible to all.
What ‘simplifying’ doesn’t mean though, is:
Being sloppy or inaccurate
Ignoring or not including evidence or data
Avoiding the difficult or challenging things
Being superficial and focusing on what things look like rather than what they mean
Summing up
Simplification usually requires more thought, not less. It takes work to understand something well enough to explain it simply.
So when we talk about “simplifying” evaluation, what we really mean is this:
We’re making it clear, accessible, and applicable, without losing its strength.
Because the goal isn’t to make evaluation sound clever. The goal is to make it work.
