Extraordinary circumstances and Dick Cheney’s ‘stuff happens’ March 29, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Evaluation debates, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , add a commentIn my last blog posting I commented on Jon Stewart’s critique of ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that the Bush administration should not be held accountable for the U.S. economic melt-down because a number of things happened during their term which affected the economy. The Vice President summarized this by saying that ‘stuff happens’ and this ‘stuff’ unexpectedly blew their budget. The ‘stuff’ included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. In technical outcomes theory terms, the Vice-President was mounting an ‘extraordinary factors’ argument to reduce his administration’s accountability for the economic melt-down. (more…)
To attribute or not to attribute – Jon Stewart vs Dick Cheney March 27, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Evaluation debates, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , 3commentsIn a recent episode of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show he deconstructs a high-profile interview with Dick Cheney, the previous Vice President of the United States, undertaken by another interviewer. While this is a comedy show, being an overly analytical sort of person, I can’t watch it without analyzing what is going on it in from the point of view of outcomes theory! At a technical level, the key issue Stewart is focusing on in creating his laughs is what in outcomes theory is called – demonstrable attribution. Demonstrable attribution is being able to demonstrate that an improvement which occurs following an intervention has been caused by a particular intervention (see here for more outcomes theory information on this). In summary, Stewart claims that Dick Cheney is applying a double standard around demonstrable attribution. (more…)
If all knowledge is subjective, why listen to evaluators? March 24, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes theory & politics, Philosophy of science , 1 comment so farThis week I’m blogging on a Rich Dialog Process (RDP) I facilitated recently on the interface between research (and evaluation) and policy. Check out my last couple of blog postings for more information on the actual process. One of the most interesting moments for me was a relatively short interchange around the issue of research ‘agendas’ and subjectivity and objectivity in research. I decided that given the range of issues we had to cover in the RDP there was not enough time to get right into this topic, important though it is, and the participants did not seem to want to get into it at that moment, so we moved on. However, this is an issue which I’ve been interested in for a long time. (more…)
The steps in a Rich Dialog Process March 23, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Rich Dialog Process (RDP) , 1 comment so farI’m blogging this week on a Rich Dialog Process (RDP) which I facilitated last week regarding better ways of getting research (including evaluation) implemented in the policy arena. The process consisted of three meetings – a policy-makers only meeting; a researchers-only meeting; and, a joint policy-makers / researchers meeting. More description of the process follows: (more…)
What’s an RDP? Reseachers and policy makers in dialog March 22, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Research influening policy , add a commentLast week we held the final session of a national Rich Dialog Process (RDP) on the topic of the interface between research and policy. A Rich Dialog Process is a simple process which we have developed which facilitates deliberation and dialog on an issue on which stakeholders may have somewhat differing views. (More on the process at www.RichDialogProcess.org). We have run a number of these processes, usually related to research and evaluation issues. (more…)
Lines, arrows and ‘Engineering’ solutions March 20, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Using the approach , add a commentAt a national philanthropy conference I presented at this week I demonstrated using the Easy Outcomes approach as a way for grantees to communicate what they are doing in their programs to their philanthropic funders. The visual models underlying the Easy Outcomes approach are drawn in DoView outcomes and evaluation software. The particular example I used was a user-friendly mock-up which I will put up on the internet in a week or so. It uses the latest version of DoView (1.17) which is planned for release in a couple of weeks – it is very cool in that it allows images to be inserted into a DoView file – really bringing outcomes models (logic models) to life. Check out this initial mock-up here (it will also let you drill-down with a hyperlink ‘hop-to’ beneath text, indicators, evaluation questions etc.). There were lots of positive comments about the model, including one community group woman saying ”Hallelujah, finally someone has started talking our language and realzing that we like working with pictures and images not just tables and text’. However, one other person did comment that they though the model looked rather like an ‘engineering approach’. (more…)
Tables versus visual models March 19, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes models, Reporting systems, Using the approach , 3commentsEach day this week I am blogging on some of the themes that came up at a national philanthropy conference earlier in the week where I presented on the Easy Outcomes approach. There was some discussion in the conference session about the dynamic nature of what grantees do and how it is hard to capture such dynamism in any rigid system of evaluation. However, as is often the case, at the end of the day, some tabular logic models were presented as an example of how to set out an evaluation. I am not criticizing their presentation, because this is currently standard practice in evaluation planning, and the use of some sort of logic model is always much better than not having one. However, in my view, we fall back on the use of tables because we do not realize that there are better ‘technologies of representation’ (i.e. visual outcomes models) that we could use.
(more…)
Beware of suspiciously tidy indicator sets March 19, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Communicating outcomes models, Easy Outcomes, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes models, Reporting systems , 1 comment so farI’ve just come away from presenting at a national Philanthropy conference as part of a half day session on evaluation and outcomes. I was presenting on the use of the Easy Outcomes approach as a way of grantees structuring outcomes, indicators and evaluation. I will tidy up the outcomes model I used and post a link to it in a blog in a week or so. A lot of interesting points came up in the discussion and I will blog on several of them over the next few days. The first one is to be beware of suspiciously tidy indicator sets. The Easy Outcomes approach gets people to draw an outcomes model (intervention logic) of what they are trying to do without worrying about what they can and can’t measure and what they can, and can’t demonstrate is attributable to their particular project (both of these issues are dealt with later in the process). You draw the models using the guidelines here.
(more…)
Time for an Attribution Commission? March 17, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Economic analysis, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , 1 comment so farA blog posting by Dean Baker (he is one of the few economists who accurately predicted the housing collapse) looks at the ‘comparative responsibility’ of Bush and Obama for the 2009 U.S. deficit in the face of some Republican claims that somehow it is Obama’s fault. He argues that most of it is the legacy of Bush. Whenever an administration changes you get endless debate as to who is responsible for what. In fact much of political discourse is about attribution and accountability, where attribution is about attempting to demonstrate that an agent caused something to happen and accountability is whether they should be punished or rewarded for what has happened. (See the article here for more on attribution and accountability within outcomes theory). (more…)
Bonuses role in the financial melt-down March 16, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes models, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news, Reporting systems , add a commentPresident Obama has amplified the attack on bonuses being paid to staff in companies which have been bailed out by the U.S. government (CNN, 16 March 2009). What does outcomes theory have to say about the role of the bonus system in the current financial meltdown? I blogged in 2007 about the problem of bonuses in the financial system and how it was possible the full extent of the melt-down would take time to be revealled. Thinking in terms of an outcomes model, what has happened is that financial institutions should have been aiming (as they do in healthy times) at the overall outcome of Sustainable long-run profitability. (more…)