~AEA Public Library

Six conditions that increase the likelihood & effectiveness of evaluators speaking truth to power Barbara Klugman Eval 2018 Conference 

11-25-2018 09:59

This presentation offers six conditions that position an evaluator to use evaluation evidence to effectively speak truth to power. These are illustrated drawing on a summative evaluation of the Ford Foundation’s $54m Strengthening Human Rights Worldwide global initiative, and a developmental evaluation of the Atlantic Philanthropies’ Tekano Atlantic Fellows for Health Equity leadership development programme. The factors are: 1) timing of the evaluation;  2) willingness of both evaluation commissioner and evaluand to learn and improve; 3) the evaluator’s capacity for and practice of relationship trust-building; 4) the production of high quality evidence; 5) commitment to and comfortableness with the role of evaluator as advocate, as long as this does not undermine the ability of those involved to speak for themselves; and  6) terms of reference that allow and fund the evaluator to independently communicate findings in ways most likely to influence the practice of the evaluation commissioner and broader constituencies.

Statistics
0 Favorited
4 Views
1 Files
0 Shares
2 Downloads

Related Entries and Links

No Related Resource entered.

Tags and Keywords

Attachment(s)
pdf file
Six conditions that increase the likelihood & effectivene...   316 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 11-25-2018
This presentation offers six conditions that position an evaluator to use evaluation evidence to effectively speak truth to power. These are illustrated drawing on a summative evaluation of the Ford Foundation’s $54m Strengthening Human Rights Worldwide global initiative, and a developmental evaluation of the Atlantic Philanthropies’ Tekano Atlantic Fellows for Health Equity leadership development programme. The factors are: 1) timing of the evaluation; 2) willingness of both evaluation commissioner and evaluand to learn and improve; 3) the evaluator’s capacity for and practice of relationship trust-building; 4) the production of high quality evidence; 5) commitment to and comfortableness with the role of evaluator as advocate, as long as this does not undermine the ability of those involved to speak for themselves; and 6) terms of reference that allow and fund the evaluator to independently communicate findings in ways most likely to influence the practice of the evaluation commissioner and broader constituencies.