|
Learning for and From Change: Application of Theory of Change based Monitoring and Evaluating (M&E) to Fast-Tracking Capacities of African Women Scientists in Agricultural Research and Development
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| James Kakooza, African Women in Agricultural Research and Development, j.kakooza@cgiar.org
|
| Margaret Kroma, African Women in Agricultural Research and Development, m.kroma@cgiar.org
|
| Zenda Ofir, African Evaluation Association, zenda@evalnet.co.za
|
| Abstract:
Learning and capacity building for transformative change in the African Women in Agricultural Development (AWARD) is the focus of this paper. First, it describes the projects’ overall aims, objectives and outcomes as creating a reliable pool of scientifically proficient, visible women scientists with strong leadership capacities who can play influential roles in African agricultural research and development. The paper presents a critical interpretive analysis of the measuring learning in the context of diverse stakeholdership. Through an innovatively developed AWARD project Theory of Change, the paper answers the question, “how are the intended outcomes in terms of targeted behavioural changes realised while learning from the changes themselves by articulating AWARD’s innovative M&E hybrid model that takes account of the multi-faceted and complex character of the project’s intervention that puts behaviour change outcomes at the centre of its efforts. It concludes that ideal situations don’t hold and that for desired learning to occur there must be in-built flexibility to allow for mediation between real and the ideal situations
|
|
Theory-based Stakeholder Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Morten Balle Hansen, University of Southern Denmark, mbh@sdu.sam.dk
|
| Evert Vedung, Uppsala University, evert.vedung@ibf.uu.se
|
| Abstract:
This paper introduces a new approach to program theory evaluation called Theory-based Stakeholder Evaluation (TSE model).
Most theory-based approaches are program-theory driven and some are stakeholder-oriented as well. Practically all of the latter fuse the program perceptions of the various stakeholder groups into one unitary program theory. Our TSE model keeps the program theories of the stakeholder groups apart from each other and from the program theory embedded in the institutionalized intervention itself. This represents, we argue, an important clarification and extension of the standard theory-based evaluation. The TSE model is elaborated in order to enhance theory-based evaluation of interventions characterized by conflicts and competing program theories.
|
|
Issues on Social Science Theory Versus Stakeholder Theory-based Interventions: Leasons Learned From Evaluating an Environmental Tobacco Smoke Intervention Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Huey Chen, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hbc2@cdc.gov
|
| Nannette Turner, Mercer University, turner_nc@mercer.edu
|
| Abstract:
Social science theory and stakeholder theory are two major sources of program theory. Researchers prefer social science theory by arguing that interventions based upon social science theories are rigorous and more likely to be effective. On the contrary, stakeholders prefer stakeholder theory, because interventions based upon stakeholder theory reflect the real world, fit local needs, and are more likely to work in local situations. However, few empirical studies are available to substantiate these arguments. The proposed paper illustrates that an evaluation of a community-based, environmental tobacco smoke prevention program provides empirical information to address these issues since the program contains interventions based on both social science and stakeholder theories. By systematically comparing the implementation and outcomes of these two types of interventions, the evaluation provides an empirical understanding of the pros and cons of these two types of interventions and contributes in further advancing program theory.
|
|
Evidence-based Interventions in the Context of Program Evaluation: A Critique and Alternative Perspective
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Huey Chen, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hbc2@cdc.gov
|
| Paul Garbe, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, plg2@cdc.gov
|
| Abstract:
Advocates of evidence-based interventions forcefully urge practitioners to apply interventions with impactful evidence provided by RCTs (efficacy evaluation) in their practice. The pros and cons of RCTs and evidence-based interventions have been intensively debated among evaluators. However, logic steps that link evidence-based interventions to real-world applications have not been systematically identified and empirically examined. This paper uses the conceptual framework of program theory to identify a set of logic steps underlying evaluation of evidence-based interventions. The truthfulness of these logic steps is empirically assessed by using evidence from evaluating asthma and other health promotion programs. Lessons learned from these evaluations indicate that the current evidence-based interventions mainly focus on maximizing internal validity and neglect real-world issues on implementation, such as viable validity and external validity. The paper proposes a comprehensive perspective of evidence with three components (viability, effectiveness, and generalizability) and a bottom-up approach to systematically address issues on these three components.
|
| | | |