Finding common ground: Centralizing responsiveness within a multisite initiative

Abstract

In this reflective analysis, I describe the conditions that led the leaders of a multisite initiative to adapt their program model towards a framing that centralized responsiveness as an organizing value. After reflecting on how this shift affected the initial evaluation plan, I provide a synopsis of how we went about revising our evaluation strategy. The reimagined approach centred on eliciting and characterizing various site-specific aspects of culture and context that may influence outcomes attainment across the multisite initiative. This approach enabled comparative analysis of the various innovative, place-based expressions of the initiative across its sites. Reframing the evaluation strategy also enabled future comparative mixed methods study of maximal variation cases and qualitative comparative analysis of specific conditions related to outcomes attainment. Findings suggest that evaluators would benefit from embracing adaptive change in programs and expecting heterogeneity in multisite initiatives.

Keywords

context culture evaluator education multisite initiatives responsiveness values

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Evaluation Association. (2011). Public statement on cultural competence in evaluation. www.eval.org

Anderson-Draper

M. H.

(2006). Understanding cultural competence through the evaluation of ‘Breaking the silence: A project to generate critical knowledge about family violence within immigrant communities’. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(2), 59.

Argyris

(1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.

Conner

R. F.

(1985). International and domestic evaluation: Comparisons and insights. New Directions for Evaluation, 25, 19–28.

Cousins

J. B.

Shulha

L. M.

(2006). A comparative analysis of evaluation utilization and its cognate fields of inquiry: Current issues and trends. In Shaw

Greene

Mark

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 267–291). SAGE.

Dahler-Larsen

(2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986.

Funnell

S. C.

Rogers

P. J.

(2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Jossey-Bass.

Gates

Dyson

(2017). Implications of the changing conversation about causality for evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016644068

Gertler

P. J.

Martinez

Premand

Rawlings

L. B.

Vermeersch

C. M. J.

(2016). Impact evaluation in practice (2nd ed.). Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank.

10.

Gliner

J. A.

Morgan

G. A.

Leech

N. L.

(2016). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Taylor & Francis.

11.

Heifetz

Grashow

Linsky

(2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

12.

Hofstetter

C. H.

Alkin

M. C.

(2003). Evaluation use revisited. In Kellaghan

Stufflebeam

D. L.

(Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 197–222). Kluwer Academic.

13.

Maréchal

(2010). Constructivism. In Mills

Durepos

Wiebe

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n84

14.

Moss

P. A.

Pullin

D. C.

Gee

J. P.

Haertel

E. H.

Young

L. J.

(Eds.). (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

15.

Preskill

Catsambas

T. T.

(2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. SAGE.

16.

Rossi

P. H.

Lipsey

M. W.

Henry

G. T.

(2018). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). SAGE.

17.

Scriven

(2012). The logic of valuing. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(133), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20003

18.

Scriven

(2019). The checklist imperative. New Directions for Evaluation, 2019(163), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20374

19.

Shulha

L. M.

Whitmore

Cousins

J. B.

Gilbert

al Hudib

(2016). Introducing evidence-based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation results of an empirical process. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015615230

20.

Stevahn

King

J. A.

Ghere

Minnema

(2004). Essential competencies for program evaluators self-assessment. https://www.cehd.umn.edu/OLPD/MESI/spring/2015/KingStevahn-EssentialCompetencies.pdf

21.

Stevahn

King

J. A.

Ghere

Minnema

(2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273180