|
||||||
 One of the important features of genuine evaluation is appropriate measurement, including dealing with uncertainty, as I was reminded by Chris Coryn of the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University, in our discussions at the International Summer School on Public Policy Evaluation Research last week. A free webinar on 16 September 10.30am – 11.30am CDT by Read the whole post –> Free webinar on measurement, risk and uncertainty Some more developments in UK development funding, an issue we looked at in a post a few weeks ago. Lawrence Haddad, Director of the Institute for Development Studies has an interesting article in the Guardian in response to David Cameron’s statements on international aid. The best ways to deliver overseas aid are often not easy to Read the whole post –> The risks of focusing on the easy-to-measure A salutary reminder that just because things are measured precisely (such as money) doesn’t mean that the measurements are valid or useful. As reported by Louise Story, Landon Thomas Jr and Nelson D. Schwartz, in the New York Times on 13 Feb 2010 : As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American Read the whole post –> What you measure and how you measure it – the Greek financial example Is certainty of measurement the most important criterion for impact evaluation? Colin Burrows has set forward a tongue-in-cheek proposal for measuring the impact of research undertaken in universities – the Impact-o-meter. This satirical piece raises serious questions about the cost, precision and implications of measuring impact. As an aside, Australia had developed a framework for assessing Read the whole post –> The Impact-o-meter We might remember ‘regression to the mean‘ from those lists of threats to validity (in terms of causal analysis). But when is it actually likely to be a problem for genuine evaluation? In a recent post by Rebecca Goldin on the stats.org blog, “Why any ol’ diet will work (if your BMI is Read the whole post –> Does regression to the mean explain successful diet programs? Where do you draw the balance? Should we stop doing small evaluations that only look at a few pieces of data, to avoid the risk of misinterpretation? Or should we work harder to ensure their findings can be appropriately incorporated with other information? In a recent post on the George Mason University website www.stats.org , Trevor Read the whole post –> Critiquing a partial evaluation – is a half-full glass better or worse than no drink at all?  Every now and then the question is raised about whether evaluation really needs to incorporate “values”. Can’t we just measure what needs to be measured, talk to the right people, pass on whatever they (the people and the data) say? Why is there a need to dig into the messiness of “value”? Do we really need to say anything about how “substantial” or “valuable” an outcome is in the scheme of things, whether an identified weakness is minor or serious, whether implementation has been botched or aced, whether the entire program is heinously expensive or an incredible bargain given what it achieves? Do we really need to do anything seriously evaluative in our evaluation work? Yes, we do. And here’s why … Read the whole post –> Why genuine evaluation must be value-based |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Genuine Evaluation - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Recent Comments