This contains the slides from a roundtable session presented at Evaluation 2018:Power in partnership: reflections on agency, voice and power among evaluators, commissioners and program stakeholders When commissioners and evaluators partner in a learning exercise, where does power lie? What levels of power do evaluators, commissioners and evaluation respondents hold and how can necessary voices rise through? What power do commissioners have over programming and how much are they able to respond to the power being spoken to them? This roundtable presented an opportunity to reflect on these questions through the lens of the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP), a new approach to impact assessment. Commissioners, Seed Global Health, Tearfund and C&A Foundation reflected with Bath Social & Development Research Ltd (the evaluators) on the scope for QuIP studies to contribute to more equitable and inclusive development practice, taking into account the emphasis on enabling respondents to give voice to their experiences, but also how this invited space is hierarchically structured. We considered whose credibility threshold counts, and how far ‘speaking truth to power’ can contribute to transforming power structures. When commissioners and evaluators partner to engage in a learning exercise, where does power lie? What different levels of power do evaluators, commissioners and evaluation respondents hold and how can necessary voices rise through? What power do commissioners have over programming and how much are they able to respond to the power being spoken to them?As evaluators, we regularly search for methodologies that will help us to credibly identify the impact of programming while at the same time support respondents’ voices to emerge. As the international development field evolves, so too does the field of evaluation and it is critical that these novel approaches are shared with others. The Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) is an impact assessment approach utilised by the team at Bath Social & Development Research Ltd that can generate credible, timely and cost-effective evidence of rural development agencies’ social impact in the context of complex rural transformations, championing a new benchmark for evidence of social impact. It aims to put respondents’ voices at the heart of evaluation and present results without placing a value on impacts or making specific recommendations.