|
Session Title: Systems Perspectives on Using Logic Models to Improve Evaluation Quality
|
|
Panel Session 663 to be held in Lone Star B on Friday, Nov 12, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Systems in Evaluation TIG
and the Program Theory and Theory-driven Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Patricia Rogers, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, patricia.rogers@rmit.edu.au
|
| Abstract:
Truth, Beauty and Justice have always been at the heart of logic models. The very notion of "logic" has embedded within it the idea of exposing the truth of an argument in elegant, beautiful ways. Justice is served by opening up and revealing embedded assumptions and values. But logic models do not always meet these ideals. To what extent does current practice in using logic models enhance the quality of evaluation? How should they be used? How critical are quality logic models to quality evaluation? What constitutes a quality logic model? This presentation features three speakers who have deeply considered these issues in different ways in different parts of the world. They draw on these experiences and observations together with insights from systems approach to evaluation.
|
|
A Systems Perspective on Evaluation Quality and Logic Models
|
| Bob Williams, Independent Consultant, bobwill@actrix.co.nz
|
|
The systems field can be considered the ground from which logic models sprung. Indeed the field has generated many different kinds of logic models depending on the orientation and purpose of the systemic inquiry. So if we were to establish criteria by which to judge the quality of logic models used in evaluation, then the systems field is a good place to start. Indeed the core systems features can be seen match the three core features of quality: thus inter-relationships create beauty, perspectives enable truth and boundaries promote justice. Bob's presentation will explore what those criteria could be
|
|
|
Representing Simple, Complicated and Complex Aspects in Logic Models for Evaluation Quality
|
| Patricia Rogers, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, patricia.rogers@rmit.edu.au
|
|
Logic models do not always improve the quality of evaluation. They can be inaccurate, misrepresenting what programs, policies and projects do, what they produce and how they work. They can be ugly, ‘spaghetti’ diagrams only comprehensible and beautiful to those who created them. They can entrench injustice by only presenting the perspectives of the powerful. This presentation sets out a situationally responsive approach to developing, representing and using logic models in evaluation to appropriately address simple, complicated and complex aspects of projects, programs, policies and strategies. It shows how careful attention to these can improve the quality of logic models and of evaluations that are based on them.
| |
|
Changing Institutional Approaches to Using Logic Models
|
| Richard Hummelbrunner, OEAR Regional Development Consultants, hummelbrunner@oear.at
|
|
Richard Hummelbrunner has dealt extensively with the dominant logic models in the international development field (LogFrame). Over the past years he has been involved in developing alternative models drawing on broader intellectual traditions, including the systems field. His presentation will sum up the main lessons learned from using these models, including the traps hidden in their presumptive beauty of simplicity and he will outline some variations or alternatives, which do justice to the broader range of perspectives found in real life situations and thus depart from the assumption of one single logic or ‘truth’ in projects or programs.
| |