You are invited!
The principles were developed on the basis of thoughtful input by practising evaluators such as you. We invite you to seriously consider an opportunity to contribute to their ongoing development through empirical inquiry. We plan to publish peer-reviewed collections of practical field studies of the principles conducted by English-, French-, and Spanish-speaking evaluators. Please consider contributing. For more information follow this link: [link to field test invitation]
Best wishes in your evaluation pursuits and may all of your evaluations be learning experiences.
Appendix 3: Call for Field Studies of CAE Principles (Intro Text for Online Fillable Form)
The COVE research team (Collaborative Opportunities to Value Evaluation: Brad Cousins, Lyn Shulha, Elizabeth Whitmore, Nathalie Gilbert) invites you as a practising evaluator to contribute to a body of empirical research concerning the use and application of Principles to Guide Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation (CAE). This invitation is being circulated to English-, French-, and Spanish-speaking members of the global evaluation community.
A full description of the development and validation of the principles is available in an article published in the American Journal of Evaluation (Shulha et al., 2016, vol. 37, no. 2) and further information is available in the aforementioned brochure-style document and list of indicators of the Principles.
Rationale
While the principles have been developed and validated, we consider this version to be preliminary and recognize that further development, validation and refinement is required. We therefore invite practising evaluators and students of evaluation to consider developing and submitting proposals for empirical field studies of the principles.
Review and Publication Process
We will accept proposals on an ongoing basis but wish to close the first round of submission by March 30, 2017. Proposals will be structured by template described below. Each proposal will be reviewed by a core editorial team and decisions regarding publication merit will be forthcoming in the month of April, 2017. All submitting authors will receive feedback from the editorial team and specific guidance in terms of structure content and timelines will be given to authors of all except proposals.
Draft field studies of 5,000 to 7,000 words, and conforming to guidelines for authors will be circulated to at least two members of a wider editorial board for single-blind peer review. Manuscripts revised on the basis of peer-review will then be published as a collection. It is our intention to publish at least two edited volumes of field studies.
Content Focus
Each field study will involve the collection and analysis of original data relative to the eight CAE Principles. We are particularly interested in issues concerning their application and utility. We have already identified for possible applications, although others are certainly possible:
Guide CAE practice in terms of planning, implementation, reporting and follow up;
Reflect on the implementation and consequences of recent CAE projects;
Review and revise or develop extant evaluation policies, or develop new policies;
Structure professional development end evaluation capacity building opportunities;
Frame research on CAE practice by, for example, using specific case applications of the CAE principles to investigate cross-cutting evaluation issues, surveying evaluators and stakeholders, developing and validating instruments to monitor and CAE practice.
From our own research we have identified a range of research questions of potential interest. No doubt a much wider range exists. By way of example only, here are some questions of interest:
Are the Principles comprehensive?
Do particular and significant omissions exist?
Are certain principles more heavily weighted in specific contexts? What are the features of context that shape such weighting?
In what ways can/do the Principles support evaluation practice?
To what extent can these Principles help to plan, or offer guidance throughout the evaluation process?
To what extent can these Principles inform stakeholders or educate nonevaluators?
To what extent are the Principles responsive to contextual complexities?
Do the Principles align with existing specific collaborative approaches to evaluation (e.g., empowerment evaluation, participatory action research, most significant change technique)? Do some principles more than others complement these specific approaches?
Are the Principles useful to novice evaluators or are they best reserved for seasoned evaluators?
Do the Principles resonate in culturally responsive evaluation contexts?
Proposal format and evaluation
Submitting authors are required to use the following template for their proposals. Text may be cut and paste into the [link to form used by submitting authors]
1 Statement of purpose: identify the research questions that will guide the study and provide ample motivation/justification for them (max 200 words)
2 Description of context: describe the context for the research and general approach (e.g., reflection on recent CAE project; proactive guidance for upcoming CAE project) (max 300 words)
3 Specification of method: provide details about intended sampling, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures, and adherence to standards of data quality assurance (max 300 words)
4 Identification of contribution: outline what is seen as the primary contribution of the field study. In what ways will it be likely to benefit the ongoing development and validation of the CAE principles?
The foregoing categories form the basis of the criteria to be used by the core editorial team in evaluating proposals for manuscripts.
More Information
We thank you for considering this opportunity to contribute to the field. If you have any questions or require further information please contact Brad Cousins at [email protected] (I am happy to follow via telephone or Skype if desired).
Descriptions of Images and Figures
Dimensions of Form in CAE Practice has three categories:
All three categories have a horizontal line with ratings from 1 to 5 that have vertical partitions numbered at partitions 1, 3, and 5
Control of technical decision-making has a horizontal numbered line where 1 aligns to stakeholder and 5 to evaluator.
Diversity among stakeholders selected for participation has a horizontal numbered line where 1 aligns to diverse and 5 to limited.
Depth of participation has a horizontal numbered line where 1 aligns to consultation and 5 to deep participation.
Back to Figure
The