Looking for a nuanced and intelligent approach to using program theory for programs that have simple, complicated, and/or complex aspects?
Then be sure to catch Patricia Rogers’ one-day workshop on Purposeful Program Theory at the Australasian Evaluation Society conference in Adelaide, August 28th 2012.
I attended a half-day version of this workshop at
Read the whole post –> Genuine Evaluation at AES: Patricia Rogers on Purposeful Program Theory
Stuart Henderson recently posed an interesting question on the AEA LinkedIn discussion forum:
Having just returned from the AEA meetings and come across the book The Two Second Advantage (Ranadive and Maney), I’m wondering what people think are some exciting developments in evaluation.
The book, “The Two Second Advantage” (Ranadive and Maney), suggests that
Read the whole post –> What’s new and exciting in evaluation? Looking two seconds ahead
After years working on this with my co-author Sue Funnell, I’m looking forward to the launch of the book Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models in Canberra next Thursday (Yes, on St Patrick’s Day).
Thursday 17 March, 5.30 for 5.45 pm
Venue: Central Courtyard University House, Balmain Crescent,
Read the whole post –> Australian book launch of ‘Purposeful Program Theory’, Canberra 17 March
**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
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
Read the whole post –> Critiquing a partial evaluation – is a half-full glass better or worse than no drink at all?