Resources and Links to Literature
This list is a work in progress. We invite others to suggest additional reference by emailing Melanie Hwalek at mhwalek@specassociates.org.
Overall Gestalt of EvaluationLive!®
Concept of Flow (conceptual catalyst for EvaluationLive!)
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004, February). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Flow, the secret to happiness. [Video File] Retrieved June, 2013, from Ted Talk website: http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html.
Operationalizing EL!
Fischer, B, and Williams, J. (2011). [PowerPoint slides] The Half-Naked Rubric: Creating Collaboratively Developed Tools to Measure Education as Intervention. Retrieved June, 2013 from American Evaluation Association website: http://www.eval.org/.
Importance of Practice
Chelimsky, E. (2013). Balancing evaluation theory and practice in the real world. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(1) 91-98.
EL! Evaluator Characteristics
Competence
the evaluator is credible, culturally humble, and knows methodologies, measurement and management.
Content Expertise
the evaluator has or acquires sufficient knowledge about the topic or intervention being evaluated to make meaningful interpretations of the findings and to have smart conversations with stakeholders.
R. VeLure Roholt & M. L. Baizerman (Eds.), Evaluation advisory groups. New Direction for Evaluation, 136.
Flexibility
the evaluator modifies the evaluation design as the need dictates and provides stakeholders with meaningful information at the right time, even if this means accommodating unanticipated deadlines.
Communication skills
the evaluator is adept at asking good questions, managing conversations, teaching, presenting, listening and writing.
A learner attitude
the evaluator is as much a learner as s/he expects clients to be, learning about both the program being evaluated and how to improve his/her own evaluation skills.
Resources
Cultural Humility
AEA and CES Program Evaluation Standards.
Finn, J., and Jacobson, M. (2008) Just Practice: A Social Justice Perspective to Social Work. (2nd ed.). Iowa: Eddie Bowers Publishing, 233–244; 219-222.
Context
Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2012). An Introduction to Context and Its Role in Evaluation Practice. In D.J. Rog. J.L. Fitzpatrick, & R. F. Conner (Eds.), Context: A framework for its influence on Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, 7-24.
Conner, R. F., Fitzpatrick, J. L., & Rog, D. J. (2012). A first step forward: Context assessment. In D.J. Rog. J.L. Fitzpatrick, & R. F. Conner (Eds.), Context: A framework for its influence on Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, 89-105.
Management
Dibble, S. (January, 2013). [Video File] Project Management for Evaluators. Retrieved June, 2013, URL from Center for Evaluation Video presentations: http://vimeo.com/58618129.
R. VeLure Roholt & M. L. Baizerman (Eds.), Evaluation advisory groups. New Direction for Evaluation, 136.
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. (4th Ed). California: SAGE.
Lederman, S. (2012). Exploring the Necessary Conditions for Evaluation Use in Program Change. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(2) 159-175.
Evergreen, S. (2013). Presenting Data Effectively: Communicating Your Findings for Maximum Impact. California: SAGE.
King, J. A, and Stevahn, L. (2013). Interactive Evaluation Practice. California: SAGE.
Finn, J., and Jacobson, M. (2008). Just Practice: A Social Justice Perspective to Social Work. (2nd ed.). Iowa: Eddie Bowers Publishing, 240.
Royse, Thyer, Padgett, 2010 p. 388; Checklist for Writing and Assessing Evaluation Reports.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Kahneman, D. (20121. Thinking, Fast, and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Finn, J., and Jacobson, M. (2008). Just Practice: A Social Justice Perspective to Social Work. (2nd ed.). Iowa: Eddie Bowers Publishing, 290; 400-403; and 233 – 253.
Preskill, H. (2008). Evaluation’s Second Act a spotlight on learning. American Journal of Evaluation 29(2) 127-138.
King, J. A. (2008). Bringing Evaluative learning to Life. American Journal of Evaluation 29(2) 151-155.
EL! Client Characteristics
Embraces learning
the client (organization) is interested in learning about its work, values taking time to pause and reflect, and truly appreciates less-than-perfect data and program results.
Drives questioning
the stakeholders co-create the evaluation questions with the evaluator and constantly want to ask more questions.
Champions the evaluation
someone among the stakeholders, usually the person who commissions the evaluation, is a champion for the evaluation. The champion understands the value of evaluation, can anticipate what information would be useful, can put the right information in front of the right people at the right time, and can motivate the organization to pause and reflect on its work.
Resources
Preskill, H. S, Druss-Eft, D. (2005). Building Evaluation Capacity: 72 Activities for Teaching and Training. California: SAGE.
Rotondo, E. (2012). Lessons Learned from Evaluation Capacity Building. In S. Kusher & e. Rotondo (Eds.), Evaluation voices from Latin America. New Directions for Evaluation, 134, 93 – 101.
Taylor-Ritzler et al. (2013). Understanding and Measuring Evaluation Capacity. American Journal of Evaluation 34(2) 190 – 206.
Labin et al. (2012). A Research Synthesis of Evaluation Capacity Building Literature. American Journal of Evaluation 33(3) 307-338.
Fisher, S., Abdi, D, E., & Ludin, J. et. all. (2007). Working with Conflict: Skills & Strategies for Action. (4th ed.) UK: Responding to Conflict, 157-167 and 73-77.
The Community Tool Box. (2013). Troubleshooting Guide for Solving Problems: Common Problems, Reflection Questions, and Links to Support Tools. Retrieved June, 2013 from the University of Kansas website: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/solveproblem/Troubleshooting_Guide_6.aspx.
EL! Relationship
Shared Responsibility
the evaluator makes every effort to meet the needs of the stakeholders, while the client/champion recognizes that evaluation takes time and resources and works with the evaluator to make certain that the demands of the evaluation do not go beyond the resources available.
Trust
both the evaluator and the client/champion truly believe that they are in each other’s corner, that they can reveal their struggles without repercussion, and that nothing about the evaluation findings will “leak” or be revealed without the client’s knowledge and approval.
Equality
the champion, stakeholders and evaluator are all in the relationship to learn. They are all experts in their own way and recognize/respect this in each other.
Suggestions? Please write to mhwalek@specassociates.org and tell us.