[nodeval] late response to recent threads

[Saul Albert]

hi Ruth,

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 03:28:43PM +0000, Ruth Catlow wrote:
> 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.

+1 on all that.

> 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; )

Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I think you're right - there's a
kind of continuation of a post-DMZ radio project that Armin and I worked
on about 'how to organise media arts festivals' that might be a good
prequel to this. So yes! I'll try to restrain my self indulgent urges as
a participant in this process, and instead save them for a big splurge of
subjectivity...  Yay! That's unmixed it up for me, thanks Ruth :)

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

+1 that's agreed I think..

> - 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)

- Tim - 1/4 day / week until end of March, then 1 day/week on broader
  reporting including this eval until the end of April? Tim - how does
  this fit in with your established work schedule?
- Interns (x2) - 1 day each / week until April?
- Consultant (how many pending) (1/4 day / week? until end of April?)
- VOs (personally, I'd prefer my initial principle role to be data
  gathering... - done in concentrated bursts)

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

I'd say a review session would be any kind of meeting involving reflexive
assessment of the process. That should probably include us (the
Evaluation subgroup) asap - then widening out to as many stakeholders or
non-stakeholders and our resources could manage until we decide the
process is complete.

We probably need to get something out today - so could we decide on a
time to look at things, concretize them (by phone/skype/whatever - as
many of us as are available) so that Tim, Lauren and Anna - and whoever
else will be sending stuff out - can send stuff out tonight?

> - 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.

At this moment in time the main aims according to the groupthink wiki
are:

d. To build on the infrastructure for media arts in London.. 
c. To raise the visibility and appreciation of media arts in London.
b. To explore and develop shared purposes, philosophies, resources and
   vocabularies between the various discourses of media art, activism, and
   technology.
a. To work in an open, cooperative and collaborative environment.

> - Are they realistic? -
> they must be

Well, I think these ones are. Very much so.

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

I think you've taken the timing into account in the way the questions are
structured - distinctions between 'how did you hear about...' and 'did
this build infrastrucutre' have time-based elements that are short and
long term.. So yes. I think this requirement is satisfied.

>   - 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.

Sounds good to me.

> Off to wikiland.

Ruth - I'm *relly* impressed by the results of your labour - and glad I
didn't do it! I would have made a mess of that one :) So - can we sign
this off and send it out to the groups (internal, at least) that we've
got on the list?

I'm very curious to see some early results come in.

Well done Ruth, and well done everyone! A timely and good process I
think.

Re: questions about funders - I think we should send *external* funders
(ie, those that didn't give us anything, but might next time) the kind of
questions we're sending other people - really similar in most ways. The
internal ones, perhaps we need to see the outcome of the other
stakeholder groups - which we can report to them, while asking them to
complete the survey process by responding to some questions that take the
earlier results into account.

Cheers,

Saul.