[nodeval] late response to recent threads

[Ruth Catlow]

Hi All,

sorry for the late picking up so late on much of this.

First to Tim:

Would be interested to hear about your meeting with Rebecca Maguire @ 
Goldsmiths and whether she would be interested in running 
snowball/illuminative workshops for VOs and other internal 
stakeholders.

Your suggestion that we leave this aim
-To work in an open, cooperative and collaborative environment-
without questions for internal/VO level evaluation for now so that our 
surveys can be informed by what comes up in workshops, makes good sense 
to me.

In answer to Saul- after a closer reading of your mail: )

re:"There is no budget for the evaluation
I suggest... that we separate out the more quantitative processes, 
reflection and analysis that is necessary and of most interest to 
funders from the more qualitative and engaging material (snowballs! 
snowballs!) that may be more widely engaging....useful to articulate 
the distinction between evaluations that form part of a contractual 
obligation, and evaluation for learning, self-indulgence and review."

This seems a bit mixed up to me.

Do we know that past and future funders are interested solely 
interested in quantitative data? I would guess not. Also evaluation 
process should not be confused with "self-indulgence and review" ....or 
  promotion! let's eliminate any processes from our list that might fall 
into these categories. These can take place elsewhere.

Perhaps Skype interviews fall into this category Saul - they would make 
a superb NODE.London podcast promotional feature- imagine that!!!! 
(sure you have; )

Although we don't have a specific budget for evaluation we do have 
Tim's allocated time ( and experience/expertise) and some very able 
interns, which is not the same as relying on volunteerism. Perhaps you 
were talking more about different levels of stakeholders volunteering 
to give us their feedback? Perhaps Eva or Rebecca can advise us here.

Yes! to rebalancing of aims and objectives.
Also, In broad agreement with thoughts on timescale and broadening aim.

my answers to the Planning Checklist are as follows:

- Who will have overall responsibility for the evaluation?
Tim?

- How much time and money is there for it?
Let's think of committed resources rather than money: Tim, interns, 
consultants, advisors, time: till mid-April (to allow for reporting 
after data is gathered)

- Have review sessions been timetabled? - what is a review session?
for the Evaluation subgroup to review our own process? or sessions with 
stakeholders?

- What is the main aim, and specific objectives of the project? -
the wiki will tell us what we groupthink by Monday

  - Is there consensus on that last point?-
we'll find out on Monday if everyone has time to read it and feedback.

- Are they realistic? -
they must be

   - Are they time-based, and have they been thought through in 
different time-scales (short term/long term)?
they must be

   - How do we get hold of unexpected results?
-by asking open questions
-by asking people if there were any unexpected outcomes
-and using both qualitative and quantitative methods for data gathering.


Off to wikiland.
more later

x
Ruth