An evaluation a new approach to
Theory of change evaluation
Future Pathways embedded a complexity informed, theory based approach to evaluating the progress and outcomes of their work from the start. Evidence from UK marginal constituencies. An example is a disagreement within one group of theologians about what good science looks like. One answer is that even without being able to offer a definitive analysis, we firmly believe in an ongoing discussion of the fault lines between forms of value, the uncertainties embedded within academic evaluations — from precarious academic positions to the scaffolding that is needed to turn uncertain scientific claims into certain ones — and the politics of choices and cuts that are made. Rather than commanding compatibility with a single register of values, as the bureaucrat does, the diplomat negotiates ways forward together, despite an apparent incongruence of worldviews or ambitions. Catholic theologians are guided by the notion of re-actualisation, which is an age-old exercise of re-articulating the meaning and form of Christianity in the face of adversity. These conversations offer a mode of inquiry that is radically different from established evaluative protocols — quantified or not — as these conversations do not start from institutionalised parameters Figure 1: Theological ecosystem with Lego figurines created during the workshop. Our results suggest caution with regard to these frames in particular and that, more generally, frames that might seem advantageous when examining public opinion may not be when political behavior is analyzed. Versatile methods will help us to understand scientific environments in additional ways but, more importantly, they will offer a range of impulses that compel project partners as well as analysts to rethink established ways of evaluating academic quality. Max Fochler and Sarah de Rijcke recently called for a more exploratory, less standardised way of doing research evaluation, with the introduction of the concept of the evaluative inquiry. The project with the Catholic theologians made us rethink our own roles. Working with the theology department, we decided to combine interviews with the less familiar method of a design thinking workshop. This webinar will be of interest to anyone engaged in trauma informed work or taking an outcome focused approach to support, including using Self Directed Support and members of the OutNav Community.
Accountable conversations: from reporting to ongoing engagement Academic evaluations typically have a clear sense of boundaries; cause and effect, beginnings and ends.
Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. The figure of the diplomat allows us to take the evaluation project seriously as both technical and political, both furthering our understanding of different knowledge traditions and working towards making the encounter work for all parties involved.
These four principles around the how, what, who, and why of the evaluative inquiry will hopefully turn what might otherwise be considered liabilities in evaluation into sources of inspiration.
Theory of change evaluation questions
Rather than commanding compatibility with a single register of values, as the bureaucrat does, the diplomat negotiates ways forward together, despite an apparent incongruence of worldviews or ambitions. Click to email this to a friend Opens in new window Contemporary research evaluation systems are often criticised for negative effects they can have on academic environments and even on knowledge production itself. Accountable conversations: from reporting to ongoing engagement Academic evaluations typically have a clear sense of boundaries; cause and effect, beginnings and ends. At a recent conference Sarah de Rijcke presented our work around the evaluative inquiry and was asked how this approach could work within the hierarchies and power struggles of current academia and science policy. Nature climate change forthcoming Google Scholar Bolsen T A light bulb goes on: norms, rhetoric, and actions for the public good. Academic evaluation regimes set up to quantify the quality of research, individual scholars, and institutions have been widely criticised for the detrimental effects they have on academic environments and on knowledge production itself. Evidence from UK marginal constituencies. The workshop seemed a perfect tool by which to engage participants in unusual ways, get them to think outside the box, and gain additional insights into the workings of the department.
About the webinar Melvina Robbin is a researcher at Future Pathways with particular responsibility for engaging people supported by Future Pathways to understand how the organisation is contributing to improving outcomes and what more can be done.
Contextual focus: from individuals to building common worlds Academic evaluations are typically constructed around the idea that academic quality is a value that can be attributed to an individual unit a scholar, department, or institution.
One exercise encouraged participants to build their own theological ecosystems using pipe cleaners, paperclips, and Lego figurines. Oxford University Press Google Scholar Hart PS, Nisbet EC Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.
This disconcertment compelled us to reconsider some of the entrenched assumptions about the what, where, how, and who of academic quality.
based on 16 review