Moving past the debate about randomized experiments May 25, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation debates, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Using the approach , 2commentsA colleague Bob Williams recently drew attention to articles on the New Yorker about the use of randomized experiments and particularly one from an economist advocating their widespread use in a range of program areas.
I’ve been involved in a number of seemingly endless discussions and presentations about the pros and cons of randomized experiments and the rise of what are being called the Randomistas – those advocating for a much wider use of randomized experiments. In this post I want to talk about how we can move beyond these seemingly endless discussions. (more…)
Developing an M&E plan using a visual approach January 8, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Using the approach , add a commentOn various lists I am on I often see requests by people wanting to develop what is called an M&E plan. This terminology is often used in the international development area. It refers to a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. The way these requests are made makes me think that the way you should monitor and evaluate different projects varies a great deal. (more…)
Can an exhaustive list of impact evaluation designs be developed, or is my mission on this futile? August 27, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation debates, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Using the approach , add a commentI have set out on a mission as a part of outcomes theory to attempt to develop an exhaustive list of impact/outcome evaluation designs – evaluation designs which make a claim that changes in high-level outcomes can be attributed to a particular intervention. If we could pull off developing such a list that most people are happy with, it would be very powerful. First it could be used in evaluation planning to work out if all of the possible impact evaluation designs had been assessed for their appropriateness, feasibility and/or affordability. At the moment I think that almost every evaluation planner walks around wondering if there is some sort of impact evaluation design they have not considered.
(more…)
Untangling evaluation terms – discussing evaluation ‘types’ with clients often more useful than evaluation ‘approaches’ August 24, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation debates, Evaluation planning, Use of terms, Using the approach , add a commentI have just put up a outcomes theory article based on a book chapter I wrote some time ago dividing the terminology used in evaluation into five groups of terms about five different ‘aspects’ of evaluation. These aspects are: evaluation approaches; evaluation types (based on the purpose of the evaluation); evaluation methods; evaluation information analysis techniques; and evaluation designs. Approaches tend to combine a range of different elements including general approaches to evaluation, philosophy of science views and for instance, quasi-political perspectives on the relationship between empowered and disempowered groups. Evaluation approaches are often not mutually exclusive from each other from a conceptual point of view. Evaluation approaches include such things as Scriven’s Goal Free Evaluation, Patton’s Utilization Focused Evaluation and Fetterman’s Empowerment Evaluation. While I find these very interesting from the point of view of stimulating my thinking about evaluation, I often (but not always) do not find them very useful when talking to a client about a specific evaluation.
(more…)
Formative evaluation versus impact/outcome evaluation August 20, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation debates, Evaluation planning, Outcomes theory, Use of terms, Using the approach , add a commentIn response to a posting on one of my outcomes theory articles by Marcus Pilgrim who ran the recent YEN Evaluation Clinic in Damascus, I have worked up an article on the difference between formative, process and impact/outcome evaluation. As Marcus points out in his posting, the term formative (or developmental) evaluation is not one which is widely known in all sectors. Formative evaluation is directed at optimizing program implementation. Process evaluation attempts to describe the course and context of a program. Impact/outcome evaluation looks at the intended and unintended, positive and negative outcomes of a program and whether they can be attributed to the program. (more…)
Damascus – YEN Evaluation Clinic August 12, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Outcomes systems architecture, Using the approach , 2commentsApologies for not blogging for a while, I’ve been involved in considerable travel and lots of other work – but that’s really no excuse. Maybe I just got all blogged out. What with Knolling, Blogging here and Twittering, maybe it all just got too much. Anyway, I’m back in the saddle now as they say! Last month I was fortunate to be an evaluation expert at the YEN Evaluation Clinic in Damascus. YEN is the Youth Employment Network – an International Labour Organization, World Bank, United Nations collaboration. A site for the evaluation clinic has been set up at yenclinic.groupsite.co.
The Evaluation Clinic took two examples of youth employment programs and worked through designing an impact evaluation for them. It was a fascinating experience. I’ll blog about what it was like being the sole psychologist evaluator working with five economists evaluation specialists (from the ILO and the World Bank) another day! (more…)
Tracking jobs created under the U.S. Recovery Act – when should the attempt at measurement be abandoned? June 16, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news, Reporting systems, Using the approach , add a commentThe default expectation in at least some sections of the U.S. public sector seems to be that it should always be feasible and affordable to both measure and attribute the results of interventions. This is using the term attribution to mean being able to actually demonstrate that a change in an outcome has been caused by a particular intervention rather than being the result of other factors (see here for more on attribution). The recent U.S. Recovery Act is a case in point. While it’s reasonable to start from the position that you should routinely assess the possibility of measuring and attributing changes in outcomes of particular interventions, you can’t start by just assuming that it will always be feasible or affordable to do this. Clinging to such an assumption, where it is untrue, can result in you either measuring an outcome when the data you are collecting is not accurate, or acting as though what you are measuring (even if it is an accurate measurement of a change in an outcome) is demonstrably attributable to a particular program, when in fact it may not be. (more…)
Over-simplifications in outcomes, monitoring and evaluation June 3, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Using the approach , add a commentAn evaluation colleague Patrica Rogers commented on an earlier blog posting of mine in which I was claiming that what I am trying to do it to make outcomes, monitoring and evaluation work ‘easier’. She challenged me on that idea and pointed out that often what we are having to deal with is over-simplification in the way people are working with outcomes, monitoring and evaluation. Her comment inspired me to work up an article on over-simplification in outcomes and evaluation and after getting underway with it I realized all of the different ways in which people approach outcomes, monitoring and evaluation with over-simplified approaches and the problems which these cause. (more…)
Being sector-centric not program-centric in deciding on program evaluation priorities May 22, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Doing evaluation more efficiently, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation , add a commentI have been blogging less in the last week or so due to going on holiday – blogging will still be less frequent for a week or so. I was recently involved in assessing a set of projects summaries to help determine which of them should be selected for more intensive evaluation input. This was not being done directly to determine project evaluation priorities, however the exercise reminded me once again of the general issue of how we determine what types of evaluation should be undertaken for particular projects. My blog comments below are about the general issue rather than the particular exercise of project selection I was recently involved in. The set of information we typically use to work out what type of evaluation should be undertaken for a project is information such as the nature of the project, the proposed evaluation questions, and the proposed evaluation budget. I think that we need more than this when determining evaluation priorities. (more…)
Don’t assume that impact evaluation should always be done April 26, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Impact evaluation, Outcomes systems architecture , add a commentImpact evaluation – evaluation which looks at whether changes in high-level outcomes can be attributed to a particular program, organization or other intervention – is a particularly useful type of evaluation when done properly. It clearly tells us what works, and what doesn’t work, and this information can be used in decision-making about which programs should, and should not, be funded in the future. However, particularly at the present time, with all of the enthusiasm for evidence-based practice, many people mistakenly assume that impact evaluation should always be attempted in regard to any program, organization or other intervention. Assuming this is a serious mistake. I’ve just put up an article in the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base which sets out in detail why it is and the way we should approach assessing when impact evaluation should be done. (more…)