|
||||||
 Standard ‘mainstream’ belief is that one element of credibility as an evaluator comes from one’s independence and the perceived objectivity (lack of bias) that derives from that. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we often find the opposite is the case: one’s credibility with the community and the provider – and with funder and external audiences who Read the whole post –> Credibility and independence in evaluation – an alternative view  So you’ve put out an RFP for an evaluation of a policy, program or initiative intended to serve and effect positive change in a “minority” community. All the proposals look terribly impressive, and they all include “cultural experts” on the evaluation team. How can you distinguish the proposals that show a clear understanding of what it takes to do effective and culturally responsive evaluations from those that merely pay ‘lip service’ to cultural competence? Read the whole post –> How to spot a ‘lip service’ approach to culturally responsive evaluation (a checklist for evaluation commissioners) In the medical profession in particular, there are some very rigid beliefs about what constitutes good enough “evidence of effectiveness” to justify offering, recommending, allowing patients to try, or even just not vehemently opposing a particular type of treatment for a patient. There are some glimmers of hope in other sectors (e.g. in the Best Evidence Synthesis work here in New Zealand). But there are still three areas where there are very serious challenges in building a credible evidence base given the kinds of constraints and realities surrounding them. They are: (1) cutting-edge treatments; (2) treatments that are by their very nature tailored/individualized rather than standardized across patients or populations; and (3) learning what works for small Read the whole post –> What constitutes “evidence”? Implications for cutting-edge, tailored treatments, and small sub-populations  Suppose you are an evaluator looking to put together a team of colleagues to bid on an evaluation of a program that primarily or exclusively targets members of your own ‘culture’ (ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, life/health/social history, profession or disciplinary roots, etc – yes, everyone is a member of several ‘cultures’). What are the various reasons for including outsiders (people from outside that culture) on your evaluation team? What is the implicit “problem” or “challenge” you would be responding to with that rationale? In what roles would outsiders be involved? How would that influence your evaluation ‘product’ (the services and the report delivered? Read the whole post –> A ‘program logic’ for including ‘outsiders’ in evaluation teams  The satirical blog “HR International” provides a wincing description of how not to include insiders in planning and evaluation processes: … it was proposed that HRI will develop a radio spot, to go with the acclaimed “edutainment” program already implemented by one of our implementing partners. Tengetile the displaced woman said that she knows nobody in the Read the whole post –> Friday funny – reconciling insider views and hard evidence **Revised and updated, March 4th** Here’s an elaborated version of the table presented in our earlier post that discussed the implicit reasons for creating evaluation teams with cultural (and other) ‘insiders’ in different proportions and in different roles. The table is presented in four columns: Read the whole post –> A fleshed out ‘program logic’ for why and where ‘insiders’ are included in evaluation What are some of the different rationales for building an evaluation team that includes cultural ‘insiders’? And, what implications do those rationales have for what roles cultural (and other) ‘insiders’ play in an evaluation? In this joint post from Patricia Rogers and Jane Davidson, we ponder these questions as a discussion starter. Read the whole post –> The insider/outsider mix: A ‘program logic’ for evaluation team composition One great area of interest for me is the study of organizational culture and organizational culture change. I’d like to present a few ideas from that area and see how they apply to the concept of culture more generally. And, how these insights might be able to drive us closer to genuine evaluation. What mix of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ can provide rich insights into what really matters and help surface important undiscussables? Read the whole post –> Culture – insiders’ and outsiders’ insights – and genuine evaluation  How much is enough evaluation capacity building (ECB) in communities and not-for-profit organizations? Where do we start and when do we stop? Is there such a thing as too much ECB? Read the whole post –> How much is enough evaluation capacity building in communities and not-for-profit organizations? |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Genuine Evaluation - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Recent Comments