Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects
AbstractA novel toolkit has been developed, using an original approach to develop its components, for the purpose of evaluating ‘soft’ outcomes and processes that have previously been generally considered ‘intangible’: those which are specifically values based. This represents a step-wise, significant, change in provision for the assessment of values-based achievements that are of absolutely key importance to most civil society organisations (CSOs) and values-based businesses, and fills a known gap in evaluation practice. In this paper, we demonstrate the significance and rigour of the toolkit by presenting an evaluation of it in three diverse scenarios where different CSOs use it to co-evaluate locally relevant outcomes and processes to obtain results which are both meaningful to them and potentially comparable across organisations. A key strength of the toolkit is its original use of a prior generated, peer-elicited ‘menu’ of values-based indicators which provides a framework for user CSOs to localise. Principles of participatory, process-based and utilisation-focused evaluation are embedded in this toolkit and shown to be critical to its success, achieving high face-validity and wide applicability. The emerging contribution of this next-generation evaluation tool to other fields, such as environmental values, development and environmental sustainable development, shared values, business, education and organisational change is outlined.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.
Volume (Year): 36 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
Values; Process evaluation; Participatory evaluation; Utilisation-focused evaluation; Indicators; Peer generated; Face validity; Co-design; Action research;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Holte-McKenzie, Merydth & Forde, Sarah & Theobald, Sally, 2006. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 365-376, November.
- Ebrahim, Alnoor, 2003. "Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 813-829, May.
- Edwards, Michael & Hulme, David, 1996. "Too close for comfort? the impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 961-973, June.
- Crohn, Kara & Birnbaum, Matthew, 2010. "Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 155-158, May.
- Heimlich, Joe E., 2010. "Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education as a strategy for meeting mission," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 180-185, May.
- Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
- Clive L. Spash, 2009. "The New Environmental Pragmatists, Pluralism and Sustainability," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 18(3), pages 253-256, August.
- Bouffard, Jeffrey A. & Taxman, Faye S. & Silverman, Rebecca, 2003. "Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 149-161, May.
- Hogard, Elaine, 2008. "Purpose and method for the evaluation of interpersonal process in health and social care," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 34-40, February.
- Odendaal, Willem A. & Marais, Sandra & Munro, Salla & van Niekerk, Ashley, 2008. "When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 209-216, May.
- Flowers, Alice B., 2010. "Blazing an evaluation pathway: Lessons learned from applying utilization-focused evaluation to a conservation education program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 165-171, May.
- Gemma Burford & Elona Hoover & Ismael Velasco & Svatava Janoušková & Alicia Jimenez & Georgia Piggot & Dimity Podger & Marie K. Harder, 2013. "Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(7), pages 3035-3059, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.