Global South non-government organizations rely on international funding and aid for continued service delivery. Service evaluation plays a significant role in ensuring compliance and ongoing service funding. Traditional service evaluation approaches could not take place during 2021 due to COVID-19, alternate mechanisms needed to be embraced. This article reports on the benefits and challenges of undertaking service evaluations online during the pandemic and the learnings and possibilities for a post-pandemic world. It emphasizes the importance of translating a relational approach to service evaluation to the online environment. Key learnings include that while some of the benefits of context and in-person connection are lost, taking a relational approach involving careful planning and reflexivity means the online evaluation process can be successful. Undertaking service evaluations online offers possibilities in a post-pandemic world as cost-effective alternatives to the expensive and time-consuming reality of in-person service evaluation across international borders and within development contexts.
AlagigaR (2010) An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse disclosure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry19(1): 32–9.
2.
ArchibaldMMAmbagtsheerRCCaseyMG, et al. (2019) Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods18: 1609406919874596.
3.
BlayaJAFraserHSHoltB (2010) E-health technologies show promise in developing countries. Health Affairs29(2): 244–51.
4.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
5.
BluteauJM (2021) Legitimising digital anthropology through immersive cohabitation: Becoming an observing participant in a blended digital landscape. Ethnography22(2): 267–285.
6.
CampbellHVanderhovenDChattertonP (2016) Knowledge that Matters: Realising the Potential of Co-production. Manchester, NH: N8 Research Partnership.
7.
DeakinHWakefieldK (2014) Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research14(5): 603–16.
8.
DuignanP (2003) Mainstreaming evaluation or building evaluation capability? Three key elements. New Directions for Evaluation99: 7–21.
9.
FolgheraiterF (2004) Relational Social Work : Toward Networking and Societal Practices. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
10.
FujiiLA (2018) Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York: Routledge.
11.
HenleyLJHenleyZAHayK, et al. (2021) Social work in the time of COVID-19: A case study from the global south. The British Journal of Social Work51(5): 1605–22.
12.
HowlettM (2022) Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research22: 387–402.
13.
IsraelBASchulzAJCoombeCM, et al. (2019) Community-based participatory research. In: GaleaSEttmanCKVlahovD (eds) Urban Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 272–84.
14.
JennerBMyersK (2019) Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: A comparison on in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal ofSocial Research Methodology22(2): 165–77.
15.
JohnsonDScheitleCEcklundE (2021) Beyond the in-person interview? How interview quality varies across in-person, telephone, and Skype interviews. Social Science Computer Review39: 1142–1158.
16.
JowettAPeelEShawR (2011) Online interviewing in psychology: Reflections on the process. Qualitative Research in Psychology8(4): 354–69.
17.
KapiszewskiDMacLeanLReadB (2015) Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
LietzCAZayasLE (2010) Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social Work11(2): 188–202.
19.
LobeBMorganDHoffmanK (2020) Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19: 1–8.
20.
Makosky DaleyCJamesASUlreyE, et al. (2010) Using focus groups in community-based participatory research: Challenges and resolutions. Qualitative Health Research20(5): 697–706.
21.
MarziS (2021) Participatory video from a distance: Co-producing knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic using smartphones. Qualitative Research. Epub ahead of print 20 August. DOI: 10.1177/14687941211038171.
22.
MassazzaAMayCRRobertsB, et al. (2022) Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises. Social Science & Medicine303: 114994.
23.
MorettiE (2021) Navigating the awkward, challenging social context of evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia21: 163–76.
24.
NikkuBR (2010) Social work education in Nepal: Major opportunities and abundant challenges. Social Work Education29(8): 818–30.
25.
NormaCGarcia-CaroO (2016) Gender problems in the practice of professional interpreters assisting migrant women in Australia: A theoretical case for feminist education. Violence against Women22(11): 1305–25.
26.
NunnsH (2020) Evaluation in dynamic times: Skateboard, pushbike, or quadbike?Evaluation Matters-He Take Tō Te Aromatawai6: 10–18.
27.
PostillJ (2017) Remote ethnography: Studying culture from afar. In: HjorthLHorstHGallowayA, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. New York: Routledge, 61–69.
28.
SandersJMunfordR (2017) Hidden in plain view: Finding and enhancing the participation of marginalized young people in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods16(1): 1609406917704765.
29.
Stanley-ClarkeN (2020) Using ICT to teach clinical social work skills in New Zealand: Academic reflections. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education21(2): 75–89.
30.
Stanley-ClarkeNEnglishAYeungP (2018) Cutting the distance in distance education: Reflections on the use of e-technologies in a New Zealand social work program. Journal of Teaching in Social Work38(2): 137–50.
