24 Chapter 1 A responsive evaluation approach For the research on the intervention of MCD, we were inspired by responsive evaluation research (Abma, 2005). This approach aims to support active involvement of and interaction between all parties during the implementation and evaluation of MCD. To a certain degree, responsive evaluation allows adjustment during the implementation of MCD. Key in responsive evaluations is the direct involvement of all stakeholders whose interests are at stake, to evaluate how to reach the joint goal (Abma, 2005). This approach fits with the hermeneutic viewpoint on MCD since interpretation and understanding take place during the process (Freeman, 2011). Additionally, the approach fits since it is the first time MCD is evaluated based on experiences with MCD in the prison context. Hence, lessons along the way based on this specific context need to be translated into adjustments in the implementation of MCD. An implementation process of MCD benefits from the possibility of changing circumstances along the way (Weidema et al., 2016). Current literature often mentions the need for ‘shared ownership’ of MCD; meaning that all involved work together to realize a shared aim of the MCD sessions (Hartman, 2020; Hartman et al., 2016; Weidema, 2014). A proper implementation process of MCD needs commitment from managers, as well as involvement from staff members. Moreover, ‘the evaluator’ of the process should create conditions for interactions between stakeholders (Abma, 2005) to be able to move toward an experience of joint learning and improvements of the learning process. By all stakeholders being equally involved, and feeling equal during dialogues about the process, all can learn from each other. Responsive research aims to facilitate or stimulate improvements in practices via reflection and ongoing dialogue between all parties (Abma et al., 2009). Steering committees and peer meetings To create such interactions between all involved for a responsive approach, to elicit ‘shared ownership’ and an ongoing dialogue in the implementation of MCD, hence, to keep learning from each other’s experiences and perspectives, we advised locations starting to implement MCD to install local MCD steering committees. At the intervention locations, these Committees consisted of some members from the participating teams, the local management team including one or two director(s), a coordinator from the Educational Institute, and two of the involved researchers per location. The aim was to facilitate and monitor the implementation process of the MCD sessions and make adjustments when necessary. The research team was actively involved in the implementation process of MCD to understand the insights of participants and facilitators and to foster the improvement of practice (Widdershoven et al., 2009). Furthermore, the