A ‘program logic’ for including ‘outsiders’ in evaluation teams

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

A fleshed out ‘program logic’ for why and where ‘insiders’ are included in evaluation

**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: * Implicit “Problem” or “Challenge” Addressed * Insider Inclusion Rationale * Likely Practice Implication (How ‘Insiders’ Are Involved) * Likely Evaluation ‘Product’

Read the whole post –> A fleshed out ‘program logic’ for why and where ‘insiders’ are included in evaluation

How much is enough evaluation capacity building in communities and not-for-profit organizations?

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?