Evaluating reports

Have started this weekend looking at the evaluation sections of the final reports to see what was carried out. It's strange. I'm sure the grant applications say you have to evaluate, and many of them say they did but it seems they are evaluating resources made or coming from the project than the actual project itself. Many use an external evaluator, but so far what they do seems disparate and not structured or based on any research or framework etc. Maybe I need to get hold of those external evaluation reports to find out. In fact this is something I hadn't considered when I wrote the proposal. I mean the need to contact external evaluators etc.
Need to revisit the altc site and check and also revisit the c&c framework to remind myself what it is they are recommending.
I wonder whether their recent review found the same thing, am I just replicating what they have already done?

Reading Owen to remind myself of forms and approaches.
Proactive
Clarificative
Interactive
Monitoring
Impact
Question, can I apply these to projects as they were written for programs.
Can I read each final report and see if any of the evaluations fall undone of those forms? Or if they don't then could. Suggest they ought to.
If that was the case then the interactive could ask questions and suggest one of these approaches in the future.

To read

There is a webiste that happened to come out of MQ and am just assessing the altc report as part of my first exercise, with resources for candidates and supervisors. Timely!

Need to as for access details from the dean of research tho which means I have to officially be a candidate, but haveny heard a peep yet. How long will it take? It's been 3 weeks so far.

1. Here's the URL for reminder anyway
http://www.first.edu.au/public/mcontacts/index.html#mac

2. E. Jane Davidson’s (2004) Evaluation Methodology Basics.

3. Right First Time: How to Ensure the Success of Evaluation Projects

Gordon, Greta

Commerce and Administration, Victoria University of Wellington

March, 2009

http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/thesis/view/15

update: September 2016:
just re-reading this and found that the resource for supervisors is really interesting:

http://first.edu.au/?page_id=68

Ethics

Started to fill in the 30 page application. Wondering whether I should do one per phase and then extend it as I move into a new phase. It's too hard to fill in otherwise. Will ask Margot for advice.

Update: Submitted ethics ap. on Nov 3rd. Hopefully will make deadline and get through before ethics closes (end of Nov.) Have only applied for phase 1 as it got too complicated to try and write it for phases 1 & 2.

Philosophical assumptions

Someone asked me 'what is the theoretical framework around which your PhD is centred? I was stumped. Even though I had spent weeks thinking and reading on this, and had written a nice little half page under the heading in my proposal, i was unable to actually verbalise any coherent response! A prattled on about pragmatism, but what exactly does that mean in the context of my PhD.

I am now reading chapter 2 of Cresswell and Plano-Clarke's Designing and conducting mixed methods research. and relooking a the pragmatist worldview:

• consequences of actions
• problem centred
• pluralistic
• real-world practice oriented.

What is my worldview?

Evaluation of a project is left to the end – that is why it is often lacking.

No one wants to admit that their project ahs not achieved its goals and so will skimp on the evaluation or massage the results of the evaluation to make the project appear successful.

How is feedback from any evaluation fed back into the project? IS there ever time or money to realistically do this?

By asking the different people involved in the project, what their view is, will ensure different perspectives are heard.

Epistemology – collect data from available reports and interview MQ staff on those projects as this is easiest and ‘works’.

Combine data – methodology Use a checklist but also do interviews.

Casual discussions and add quotes when reporting on results.

The sticking point for me is the theoretical lense. 

 Theoretical Framework

A theoretical orientation for a mixed methods study would be the use of an explanatory framework from the social sciences that predicts and shapes the direction of a research study.

For example could use a change management or leadership lense.

Which social science theory will I use? IS the developmental evaluation (Patton) or MERI my framework?

To read (check if in library):

Mertens, D.M. (2009) Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.

commencement

Well I thought at the beginning of the year that I would be starting my PhD in semester 1 (at the latest), but here we are at the end of week 1, semester 2, 2011 and I just submitted my proposal!
Was so happy to receive this email:

Dear Elaine,

This email is to acknowledge receipt of your application for the PhD in Education for commencement in Semester 2, 2011 at Macquarie University.

You will receive further correspondence from us once the initial assessment of your documentation has been completed.