|
Does Power Matter in Participatory Evaluation?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Steve Jacob,
University Laval,
steve.jacob@pol.ulaval.ca
|
| Abstract:
Evaluation is presented as a practice aimed at informing deciders and managers as to the effects of public interventions. Traditionally, focus is often placed on the methodological and scientific dimensions of a given evaluation. Without contesting this vision, it seems that this perspective overshadows the political dimension and does not allow for a proper grasp of all the issues that drive the evaluation process. The aim of this presentation is to emphasize the political dimension in presenting the role and the influence that the various players involved may have in the carrying out of a given evaluation. The presentation will focus on stakeholders in order to address the question: “Is evaluation a ‘stakeholder-friendly’ environment?” Answering this question requires an understanding of the extent to which these particular players are included in the evaluation process. It will thus allow for a greater understanding of evaluation as a power game from the standpoint of the stakeholder.
|
|
Non-Traditional Teacher Preparation Program and Non-Traditional Students: Utilizing Participatory Evaluation to Measure Progress
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Patricia Alvarez McHatton,
University of South Florida,
mchatton@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
|
| Anna Robic,
University of South Florida,
robic@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
|
| Roseanne Vallice,
University of South Florida,
vallice@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
|
| Abstract:
Project PROPEL (PReparing Our Paraprofessionals to teach Exceptional Learners)
prepares paraprofessionals to become special education teachers while still working as an assistant in the classroom. This session will examine ways to evaluate a non-traditional teacher preparation program utilizing input and ideas from the participants and professionals involved in various aspects of the program. Successes and challenges will be discussed and suggestions for future evaluation procedures will be made.
|
|
"If You Cannot Bring Good News Then Don't Bring Any": Resentment and Betrayal in Participatory Evaluation Research
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Michael Matteson,
University of Wollongong,
cenetista3637@hotmail.com
|
| Abstract:
A number of evaluators have commented on being surprised by antagonistic reactions to what were thought to be inclusive and responsive participatory evaluations. This paper arose from negative stakeholder reactions to a participatory evaluation of a an Indigenous Issues program for local government children's services staff. I interviewed participants some time later to see why they had reacted with anger to evaluation results. It seems that proposals for action were taken as de facto criticisms of what was being done, and of those who were doing it. I feel there are aspects of participatory evaluation which can make this kind of reaction more likely than we would expect.
|
|
Stakeholder Selection Criteria and Methods in Participatory Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Randi K Nelson,
University of Minnesota,
nelso326@umn.edu
|
| Abstract:
The presentation reports interim results of ongoing research on stakeholder selection in participatory evaluation. The purpose of the research is to examine one aspect of collaborative or participatory evaluation methodology by describing stakeholder selection practices in practical-participatory, transformative, empowerment, utilization-focused, and culturally-responsive evaluation. The following questions guide the research: 1) What selection criteria or considerations do evaluators use to identify relevant stakeholders? 2) What methods do evaluators use to select stakeholders? 3) What program, context, and evaluation factors influence stakeholder selection? 4) How do evaluators know they selected the right stakeholders? Interim results are based on analysis of individual interviews with practicing evaluators about their stakeholder selection activities. Evaluation practitioners were nominated by evaluation theorists of diverse approaches to participatory evaluation based on the practitioners’ experience in conducting evaluations that apply theories and concepts of collaborative and participatory evaluation.
|
|
Adding Value Through Debrief: Techniques, Purposes, Applications and Contributions
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Maryann Durland,
Durland Consulting,
mdurland@durlandconsulting.com
|
| Shaunti Knauth,
Durland Consulting,
shaunti_knauth@comcast.net
|
| Abstract:
Debrief is a term often associated with business but used less often in the field of evaluation. But a debrief – or the carefully review upon completion of a project phase– can provide invaluable information and insights to evaluators and clients. The debrief can be used for a variety of purposes, such as capturing and systematizing impressions from a site visit, gathering information on improving evaluation processes, and learning whether client expectations were met. This paper provides a brief overview of debriefing purposes and techniques applicable to evaluation, with specific guidelines for use and examples. We then detail the process and results of a debrief recently carried out during the evaluation of an NSF project.
|
| | | | |