Question 10 - reporting strategies and feedback

The following reporting strategies were used:

15 final report to funding body

6 reports or products to audience

5 interim reports

5 conference presentations

4 reports to stakeholders

2 journal articles

2 reports to department (meetings)

2 faculty L&T

1 minutes of project meetings to stakeholders

1 report to faculty executive 


When asked how their reports were received, 10 out of the 15 participants reported receiving no feedback other than thank-you. This provoked a range of reactions from indifference to relief to annoyance. I think it was clear though that more than a tokenistic feedback is required. Even if it was a follow up by someone to ask about the project - show interest in how it has developed or moved on with.


One participant mentioned that it would be good if they could receive help with publishing in the L&T field rather than their discipline field - which of course they can do easily. Considering a number of people mentioned conference and journal articles then perhaps this is a service the LTC could follow up with?

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.

Question 8 - review of evaluation plan

This set of questions asked whether the evaluation plan was reviewed and if so what was the benefit of this review.
From the 6 projects who previously said they had a plan, only 3 of them said they had it reviewed. However I have to say that these answers were a little misguided. What they really meant was that they got feedback on their project at some stage. One mentioned the steering group, another mentioned student and colleague's feedback on the product and the third mentioned fedback from the application review on who should be consulted during implementation of the project.
So in effect non of the evaluation plans was really reviewed before submission and just one mentioned formative checking in with the steering group.

Question 7 - Key evaluation questions

I think this set of questions - 'Were Key Evaluation questions stated?' and if yes could they be answered adequately, did not produce any fruitful data. Out of the 15 projects, 13 said no and for the two who said yes, there was no evidence of these questions in the aplication or the report.

This could suggest that there is no clear conception of what evaluation is. Though most people interviewed could talk about the topic, when put on the spot with this question, the lack of evidence points clearly towards the fact that evaluation is not well done or at least not clearly understood or maybe that there are different perceptions of evaluation. In other words there is no 'one size fits all'.
Interesting quote " although not stated, it is understood (implicit)". But is it??


Other reasons for there being no key evaluation questions stated could be due to the inherent nature of action research and developmental evaluation whereby the questions are developed as you go.

Q6 - did the evaluation plan go to plan

This question asked whether an evaluation plan was written and presented in the application or the report. 9 interviewees said no and six said yes. Interesting that there were 7 people who originally stated that they evaluated (2 of which were evaluations of a product rather than the project) and yet only 6 had a plan. In fact two of the 6 yes's wrote a plan in their application but in actual fact they didn't end up evaluating. So to compare this:

	Evaluated the project?	Had an evaluation plan?
1	N	N
2	N	Y (in application)
3	N	Y (in application)
4	Y	N
5	Y	N
6	Y	Y
7	Y	N
8	N	N
9	N (evaluated the product)	Y
10	Y	Y
11	N	N
12	N	N
13	N (evaluated the product)	Y
14	N	N
15	N	N

Looking at the comments people made about whether the evaluation plan went to plan, there were two major themes running through the answers. The main one was that most people were thinking about the project – did IT run as planned, and not the evaluation (in some instances it could have been how I phrased the question). There appeared to be no linkage between having an evaluation plan and checking if it ran as planned ie no formative mechanisms or critical reflection checks along the way. The second theme was time. Most of those who talked about why the plan did not run as planned indicated that due to factors beyond their control or unplanned circumstances, the time it took to do the project/study meant either there was no time to do the evaluation or the project just ran out of time in general.
This could indicate that more time has to be built in to project planning for unexpected happenings that are bound to crop up.

Q5 - Stakeholders (primary and secondary)

This question asked whether stakeholder and study audiences were identified (and hence consulted - though this wasn't asked but implied) and furthermore whether it was both primary and secondary stakeholders.
The aim of this set of questions was to see whether there was any understanding of the terminology and also the relevance of identifying these groups.
There is a good paper on working with Evaluation Stakeholders (Bryson, Patton & Bowman, 2011) which offers a rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. They define stakeholders as 'individuals, groups or organisations that can affect or are affected by an evaluation process and/ or its findings. (p.1)

In Stufflebeam's 1974 Seminal paper on Meta-Evaluation (republished in 2011), one of his eleven essential criteria for technical adequacy of evaluations, is Relevance: 'This criterion concerns whether the findings respond to the purposes of the evaluation. What are the audiences? What information do they need? To what extent is the evaluation design responsive to the stated purposes of the study and the information requests made by the audiences? The concern for relevance is crucial if the findings are to have more than academic appeal and if they are to be used by the intended audiences. Application of the criterion of relevance requires that the evaluation audiences and purposes be specified. Such specifications essentially result in the questions to be answered. Relevance is determined by comparing each datum to be gathered with the questions to be answered.'

Themes from the interviews:

• Six projects mentioned students
• Some confusion about this topic
• Not thought of or implicitly stated in the application.

Q4 purpose and scope of evaluation

There were two themes that came out of this question. Most people did not detail the purpose and scope of the evaluation in the application or final report. (2 out of 15 - 27%). Most of these people explained why they didn't and that was because they felt it wasn't required, there was no importance laid on this. However many people [how many?] said they did scope the evaluation, (though there was no evidence in the report) which perhaps indicates that there was some confusion over what this question meant.

The follow up to this question asked how the information from the evaluation would be (planned) or was used. The aim was to see if there was any correlation to those that scoped the evaluation and how the evaluation results were actually used. Themes from the responses:

• To produce guidelines and / or recommendations
• Publications and conferences
• Unsure
• Feed into a larger grant