Question 9 - usability and generalisibility

The first part of this question asked whether the results of the evaluation were usable. The answers were interesting. 11 answered yes, two answered no and there were two projects who had no answer. In effect since only 5 projects did project evaluation (and a further 2 did some form of product evaluation) its interesting that 11 answered yes. This indicates that they were thinking along the lines of whether the project result were usable and not the evaluation results (although this may have been fault of the interviewer by not clarifying well enough). Still, another example of crossover in meaning of research and evaluation.
I think it would take a brave person to say there was nothing usable that came of their project. In fact one participant talked at length about this. That there was no room in the academic world for admitting failure.

So back to the 11 yes answers. The five projects that had evaluated were included in this number. Therefore it is good to see that there was in fact benefit to evaluating the projects. Furthermore, there were two projects who did product evaluation and one of these answered yes to the question but one answered no. This is an interesting case (14). The product was evaluation but eventually no one ended up implementing the recommendations for and resources produced in this project. reasons quoted included 'no time', 'no one was interested'. This leads to the question - about stakeholders being consulted with at time of application. When we look at the answer to this question, for this project we find that the project leader did not consult and in fact was not sure about what exactly a stakeholder is.

As for the part on Generalisability, there were a range of answers. Some stated categorically no, but others, when pressed reflected and stated various levels of yes from some to a lot. It was clear though that few had thought about this question, and obviously not reported on it. The other theme that emerges is the difference between content and process. Some were stuck in thinking of their project as a discipline specific thing that couldn't possibly be transposed but others mentioned that their process could be followed by anyone doing similar evaluation and projects, though interestingly few had actually explained the process in the report so how could another follow? Perhaps this level of details could be found in research publications.