When there is disagreement about key findings in evaluation (or, in science, or the world in general), should some opinions – like actual expert opinions – be given more weight?
This group of Australian climate scientists thinks so, and have put their message in this creative video (if you can’t view it below, e.g.
Read the whole post –> The Friday Funny: I’m a climate scientist!
Katherine Hay continues her guest blogging on evidence and evaluation.
Ben Goldacre in The Guardian wrote that UK politicians “are ignorant about trials and they’re weird about evidence.” He contrasts this with international development where he talks about the “amazing work testing interventions around the world with proper, randomised trials.” He goes on to
Read the whole post –> The trials and tribulations of trials
Our guest blogger this week is Katherine Hay, a senior member of the Evaluation Unit of the International Centre for Development Research. Based in New Delhi, India, she is an expert on the role of evaluation in development in South Asia. She promotes approaches that assess how women and other marginalized groups benefit from development
Read the whole post –> The Rise and Risk of Evidence
One of the hallmarks of genuine evaluation is thoughtful analysis and sound evaluative reasoning that the audience can follow.
Some of our readers are not only evaluators, but also teachers or students of evaluation. We thought you might enjoy this little classic that’s done the rounds on the Internet. We found this version on
Read the whole post –> The Friday Funny: Is hell endothermic or exothermic?
In a week of international differences in evaluation approaches, and Australia Day (26 Jan), this week’s Friday Funny comes from Kirsty Fenton, Senior Evaluation Officer with the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia.
It’s been a busy week for Patricia, traveling from The Evaluators Institute and the seminar on ‘Strengthening the Effectiveness of Evaluation
Read the whole post –> The Friday Funny – interpreting evidence and lack of evidence