|
Getting Beyond Industrial Age Thinking in Evaluation: A Critical Look at System Archetypes
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Natasha Jankowski,
Western Michigan University,
natasha.a.jankowski@wmich.edu
|
| Abstract:
System archetypes, when employed in evaluations with clients that are not familiar with system concepts, easily fall prey to industrial age thinking that is still prevalent in many organizations and programs. What we can learn and what we can do to make system archetypes more effective in light of industrial age thinking will be covered. As evaluators, it becomes necessary to be aware of the industrial age thinking that surrounds the programs we evaluate before we try to implement system concepts and archetypes. This paper presents a critical review of system archetypes as perceived through industrial age thinking with recommendations on how to advance beyond the constraints. This will allow evaluators to be better prepared to help their clients integrate system concepts into the evaluation and organizations. The potential for clients to limit the scope and impact of system archetypes employed to an evaluation using system concepts will be explored.
|
|
Unpacking the Logic Model: Systems Thinking in Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| A Cassandra Golding,
University of Rhode Island,
c_h_ride@hotmail.com
|
| Abstract:
Program dynamics highlight an intricate organization of stakeholders, within diverse contexts, and embodying several cultural influences. This incites multiple sets of assumptions and provokes a multiplicity of dialogues. Consequently, the appreciation of a given program and the evaluation process is necessarily complex, interdependent, intertwined, and non-linear.
Systems thinking, applied to evaluation work addresses the intersection of multilayered program components. Systems dynamics explicitly aims to stimulate proactive action and highlight the context in which programmatic systems are embedded. This conceptualization supports “rigorous rethinking, reframing, and unpacking complex realities and assumptions.” Systems thinking challenges conventional conceptualizations of the purpose, utilization and handling of evaluation data. This theoretical paper asks about the transformation of logic models in the evolution of the program, the representation of causal links and change within the logic model, and limitations of such. Is the logic model informed by the program, informing the program, or both?
|
| |