I’ve been doing some thinking about the various ways in which evaluation can, does and should have influence, in preparation for the forthcoming Australasian Evaluation Society conference on this topic.

That useful, modern resource, The Urban Dictionary, which has prompted some of our thinking about genuine evaluation and inspired our GE badge and jingle, has alerted me to a potentially useful concept for evaluation, created by ChristinaM33 Sep 22, 2008:

heads-uppiness
	1. the quality of communication in which one gives a warning of impending action without necessarily giving all the details. “I just wanted to voice my opinion, and support for better communication/inclusion/ heads-uppiness.”

Does this have relevance for evaluation, which tends to be looking backwards, or is it more for other types of activity which are focused on looking forward? Is it relevant for the “Now What” element of evaluation only? 

You’ve probably noticed some recent changes in the blog.  Not so much planned as responding to some recurring glitches that brought the blog down several times.

We are gradually rebuilding the site, adding back in links to previous posts and comments and to other sites.

We’ve also taken the opportunity to experiment with some different visuals.  The picture currently in the header is an Australasian hybrid – a New Zealand scene (just outside Queenstown) taken by an Australian.

We will also be revising the tags and categories, drawing on the discussions we’ve had over the past 12 months about the different aspects of genuine evaluation and recurrent issues.

But not until we meet some pressing commitments, including a piece we’re jointly writing about Australasian evaluation theory and theorists.

So any comments or suggestions on structure and style are welcome – either as comments to this post or emails to us directly.

I’m in Washington DC this week, after teaching a course on Using Program Theory and Logic Models for Evaluation at The Evaluators Institute.

Fortunately I will be able to stay on for a seminar being presented this coming Wednesday by The Evaluators’ Institute and The Washington Evaluators on

“StrengtheningEvaluation Effectiveness”

Wednesday, January 19th, 6:00pm to 7:30pm
Jack Morton Auditorium, Media and Public Affairs building, 1st floor
805 21stSt NW Washington DC 20052

I wonder if the session will consider strengthening evaluation effectiveness in terms of:

• increasing the utility of evaluation for informing evidence-based policy and practice, especially in terms of assisting policymakers and practitioners to translate findings to new situations
• increasing the attention paid to heterogeneous outcomes (rather than simply the mean net effect), and in particular to who benefits and who loses from programs and policies with heterogeneous outcomes
• increasing the attention paid to unintended outcomes (positive and negative) and to the costs incurred beyond the formal resources expended for implementation, and including the resources contributed by other stakeholders, including other organizations and clients
• improving the use of credible non-experimental approaches such as process tracing in situations where experimental or quasi-experimental designs are not appropriate or feasible
• increasing the ability of managers to commission and manage external evaluators to ensure high quality work is done
• increasing the ability of managers and service deliverers to evaluate their own programs and to make use of the evaluations of other programs

Stay tuned for a report after the session – or see you there.
Speakers include:
Gary T. Henry, Duncan MacRae’09 and Rebecca Kyle MacRaeProfessorship Public Policy
Department of Public Policy, Director, Carolina Institute for Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Harry P. Hatry, Distinguished Fellow and Director of the Public Management Program, UrbanInstitute, Washington, DC
Kathryn E. Newcomer, Director, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington University
Theodore H. Poister, Professor of Public Management and Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University

Moderator – Ann M. Doucette, Director, The Evaluators’ Institute and Midge Smith Center for Evaluation Effectiveness

Reception to follow.Please RSVP (reception) to tei@gwu.edu

The “no value-free” line of the Genuine Evaluation song (composed by the incomparable Kataraina Pipi, evaluator and composer/musician, with input from several other genuine evaluators!) was inspired by an earlier post where we defined genuine evaluation and drew some lines in the sand about what was in and what was out.

One of the things that is definitely out is so-called ‘value-free’ evaluation.

What are ‘value-free’ evaluations?

These are “evaluations” (not!) that avoid the all-important task of answering any questions about how good, valuable, worthwhile, or important the outcomes, the design, the implementation, and/or the entire evaluand (program, policy, product, service, etc) are.

Value-free evaluations simply present a Rorschach inkblot of evidence, complete with various descriptive analyses, such as key themes, most prevalent responses, statistical significance of differences, graphs and illustrations of changes – BUT they stop short of saying whether these findings represent worthwhile outcomes or quality programming.

Why the ‘values’ bit is part of our job description

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post (Why genuine evaluation must be value-based) that the word eVALUation doesn’t have the word ‘value’ in it for nothing!

The whole point of evaluation is to ask and answer questions about quality, value and importance – which clients and other readers/listeners can USE in some way (e.g. to take action, to inform decision making, to inform future design or programming, etc).

If we fail to do this we are, in my view, shirking our responsibilities as evaluators. The message to the client is “You work it out.”

‘Value-free’ is often a mix of ‘value-undiscussable’ and ‘value-poor’

There is an important reality that those who commission, use, or produce ‘value-free’ work should bear in mind:

Values ARE in fact being applied in that work; they are just not being made explicit (that’s the ‘value-undiscussable’ bit) – and they don’t go far enough (the evaluation is ‘value-poor’).

Here’s what I mean by value-undiscussable:

1. When we select the outcomes to be explored as part of an evaluation, we are implicitly saying that “these outcomes are potentially valuable” (the ones we decide to include) and “these outcomes are not” (the outcomes we decide not to bother exploring).
2. When we are not clear and explicit about how and why the outcomes were selected for exploration and why others weren’t, we are making those value-based decisions undiscussable and [deliberately?] not open for question or challenge.

Here’s what I mean by value-poor:

3. If we go to the bother of [implicitly or explicitly] declaring an outcome ‘potentially valuable’ (and this includes outcomes that are potentially detrimental – they have negative value), then why not take the next step and say something about just HOW valuable the actual outcome IS when the evidence is in. If we don’t bother with that part, the evaluation is value-poor; it uses only a weak application of values, excluding the most useful bit.

Does this basically mean that I have to be clear about “my personal values” as an evaluator and as a person?

That’s one useful place to start, and good practice in general, BUT I am not just talking about “personal values” here.

I am talking about how we define quality and value within a professional evaluation context.

I don’t mean “Which outcomes do I value?”

I don’t even mean “Which outcomes are valued by stakeholders?”

I mean “Which outcomes are demonstrably valuable in this context and for these recipients/impactees?”

The key here is that professional evaluation needs to make a case for which outcomes are “demonstrably valuable” in a particular context by going a lot further than just taking opinions or preferences out of their own heads or even the heads of stakeholders.

I’m not saying don’t ask stakeholders – that is almost always an extremely important source of information. But I am saying don’t stop there.

Outcomes are valuable, important, and worth achieving not just because somebody consciously desires or values them, but because they add value to people’s lives by helping them realize their potential, meeting a need, fulfilling an aspiration, making them healthier or more successful in work or business, etc.

The keys to evaluative transparency – visible values – are

1. Defining things like “valuable outcomes”, “quality programming and delivery”, and/or “good value for money/time/effort” based on concrete evidence from a range of sources, not just by plucking opinions from people’s heads and saying that’ll do.
2. This includes:

• • identifying the criteria (what we will look at) AND
  • the definitions of quality or value on those criteria (how we will interpret the evidence) AND
  • how the evidence is interpreted against those criteria AND
  • how the successes and disappointments, pros and cons are weighed in drawing overall conclusions about the evaluand

Visible values make for better quality ‘valuing’

The clearer and more transparent the ‘values’ that underlie the ‘valuing’ (or, evaluative reasoning) done in evaluation, the easier they are to criticize. This may make many evaluators extremely nervous – it’s like putting yourself up for target practice.

HOWEVER, as evaluators we are all ‘selling’ the idea that criticism and feedback are important for the improvement of programs, policies, products, services, and so forth. Surely the same applies to evaluation itself.

The upside is that, if the values and the evaluative reasoning are clear, criticisms are more likely to be aimed at the specifics of the evaluative reasoning (or the evidence used) rather than at the evaluator personally. So, the conversation shifts from “Well, that’s just YOUR opinion” to “I believe you have set the bar too high here when you define ‘acceptable’ levels on these outcomes.”

It’s those kinds of evaluative conversations that can really engage intended users AND lead to better evaluative thinking on the part of the client as well as the evaluator.

Related posts and other references:

• Visible values: Striving for truth, beaty and justice in evaluation [Originally a presentation delivered as part of the AEA 2010 conference's presidential strand - alongside Rodney Hopson, Katrina Bledsoe, and Ernie House - this handout is from a revised version presented to the anzea Auckland branch last week.]
• Why genuine evaluation must be value-based (Jane Davidson)
• How good is a ‘good’ outcome? (Jane Davidson)

Lots of fun and creativity this week at the American Evaluation Association conference in San Antonio, Texas: Genuine Evaluation not only has its own jingle, but a button badge! We are distributing button badges only to those who have seen the website, so they are becoming a sought after indicator of genuine-ness!

Want a badge of your own? If you’re at the AEA conference, come and find one of us tomorrow (Friday) at or before the Silent Auction reception, tell us you’re a Genuine Evaluation fan, and we’ll give you a badge if we have any left!

In the small hours of Wednesday morning, fueled by evaluative inspiration, multifaceted talent and a guitar, a jingle has also been composed for the Genuine Evaluation site and theme. Posted below are the lyrics so you can sing along with the YouTube video footage, shot at the close of an excellent session on developmental evaluation (presented by Margaret Hargreaves using a U.S. example and genuine evaluators and musical composers extraordinaires Kataraina Pipi (on guitar), Nan Wehipeihana, and Kate McKegg using a culturally responsive New Zealand version of DE – and with evaluation’s other rock star, Michael Quinn Patton, as chair and discussant).

If we can find a mike at the silent auction Friday night, you can sing along live!

Get Genuine With Me! GenuineEvaluation.com

Is it any good?
Is it real?
Is it authentic?
Genuine?
(x2)

Watch out for Jane and Patricia
Don’t miss the Friday Funnies
Global humour
Fair dinkum from Down Under

No dodgy stats
No value-free
We want meaningful data
We want quality
(x2)

Credible evidence
Visible values
Really listening
Get GENUINE with me!

Is it any good?
Is it real?
Is it authentic?
Genuine?

GenuineEvaluation.com
GenuineEvaluation.com