| In a 90 minute Roundtable session, the first
rotation uses the first 45 minutes and the second rotation uses the last 45 minutes.
|
| Roundtable Rotation I:
Evaluation Advisory Groups: A Missing Literature and Practice |
|
Roundtable Presentation 756 to be held in Conference Room 1 on Friday, Nov 4, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Collaborative, Participatory & Empowerment Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Michael Baizerman, University of Minnesota, mbaizerm@umn.edu
|
| Don Compton, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dcompton@cdc.gov
|
| Ross Velure Roholt, University of Minnesota, rossvr@umn.edu
|
| Abstract:
Evaluation advisory or consult(ation) groups (EAG/ECG) are a common (?) practice in program evaluation, one often stipulated by funders and/or by statute. Yet this practice is not written about in the evaluation literature. What is this practice and why is there so little written about it in evaluation or in other fields? These two questions structure the presentation.
Advisory consultation groups have several purposes, are brought together in several ways and are structured variously. All of this will be detailed, with examples from the public and non-profit sectors. Data from a small, multistate survey done for DNPAO, CDC will also be presented.
The question of why there is little literature on advisory/consultative groups in evaluation and in other fields despite the seemingly common use of these advise structures will also be discussed. As with managing evaluation and evaluation capacity building, earlier work by us, these advice structures seem now to be simply taken-for-granted as an ordinary practice, one almost invisible, and one unworthy of scholarship and critique. In contrast, this is not so in the field of environmental work, as will be shown. This example will be used to suggest other hypotheses to account for the relative absence of an evaluation literature on evaluation advisory/consultative groups, and to present suggestions for developing this practical and theoretical knowledge.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
If I Knew Then What I Know Now! Finding Meaning in a Disastrous Grant Experience |
|
Roundtable Presentation 756 to be held in Conference Room 1 on Friday, Nov 4, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Collaborative, Participatory & Empowerment Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| NaomiJeffery Petersen, Central Washington University, njp@cwu.edu
|
| Abstract:
In this roundtable, I'd like to discuss my analysis of the roles played by the funding agency, the R1 university, and this external evaluator during a multi-million-dollar 5 year grant that began optimistically and ended for me with great disappointment. Once I admitted how naïve I was, and that a evaluation perspective is the minority and toothless view amongst most non-human subjects researchers, I have found a therapeutic insight by anchoring my observations to such models as Trochim's System Evaluation Protocol (2010) and a fairly exhaustive literature review, leading to a more proactive strategy for any future evaluation jobs. This has further informed my teaching of assessment and evaluation courses, which we will discuss depending on the interest of the participants.
|