IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v59y2016icp47-54.html

The use of Outcome Harvesting in learning-oriented and collaborative inquiry approaches to evaluation: An example from Calgary, Alberta

Author

Listed:
  • Abboud, Rida
  • Claussen, Caroline

Abstract

The Community Development Learning Initiative (CDLI) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada aims to be a network that brings together neighbourhood residents, community development practitioners and other supporters to learn and act on neighbourhood-based, citizen-led community development projects. In 2013, the CDLI initiated The Evaluation for Learning and Dialogue Project to provide the opportunity for organizations and supporters to work together to establish a shared vision and goals through discussions about evaluation learning and outcomes. It was intended that the project would be a useful learning tool for participating organizations by enabling them to engage in an evaluative methodological process, and record relevant information and to compare and learn from each other’s projects. Outcome Harvesting was chosen as the evaluation methodology for the project. This article reviews critical learning from the project on the use of Outcome Harvesting methodology in the evaluation learning and outcomes of local community development projects, and it provides lessons for other jurisdictions interested in implementing this methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Abboud, Rida & Claussen, Caroline, 2016. "The use of Outcome Harvesting in learning-oriented and collaborative inquiry approaches to evaluation: An example from Calgary, Alberta," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 47-54.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:47-54
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915300379
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    2. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carbone, Nicole B. & Alberto, Nathalie & Henderson, Kate & Pruyn, Nina & Munyi, Wawira & Waibale, Paul & Lucido, Briana, 2025. "Use of outcome harvesting to understand the outcomes of a COVID-19 pandemic leadership and management program in six countries," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Beardmore, Amy & Jones, Matthew & Seal, Joanne, 2023. "Outcome harvesting as a methodology for the retrospective evaluation of small-scale community development interventions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. So Young Lee & José M. Díaz-Puente & Pablo Vidueira, 2020. "Enhancing Rural Innovation and Sustainability Through Impact Assessment: A Review of Methods and Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    3. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N. & Baharuddin, Azizan & Chang, Lee Wei, 2015. "Application of theory-based evaluation for the critical analysis of national biofuel policy: A case study in Malaysia," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 39-49.
    4. Romero-Gutierrez, Miguel & Jimenez-Liso, M. Rut & Martinez-Chico, Maria, 2016. "SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-49.
    5. Ofek, Yuval, 2017. "Evaluating social exclusion interventions in university-community partnerships," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 46-55.
    6. Martens, Krystin S.R., 2018. "How program evaluators use and learn to use rubrics to make evaluative reasoning explicit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-32.
    7. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    8. Telch, Fabian, 2025. "Understanding how national development planning (NDP) shapes public institutions and procedures for development: the case of Colombia," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Goswami, Rupak & Paul, Malay, 2011. "Using Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for assessing the impact of Extension programmes: An empirical study in the context of Joint Forest Management," MPRA Paper 37793, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bourgeois, Isabelle & Whynot, Jane, 2018. "The influence of evaluation recommendations on instrumental and conceptual uses: A preliminary analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 13-18.
    11. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    12. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Sarah Chapman & Adiilah Boodhoo & Carren Duffy & Suki Goodman & Maria Michalopoulou, 2023. "Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 298-322, April.
    14. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    15. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Pender, John L. & Marre, Alexander W. & Reeder, Richard J., 2012. "Rural Wealth Creation Concepts, Strategies, and Measures," Economic Research Report 121860, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    18. Healy, John & Hughes, Jeffrey & Donnelly-Cox, Gemma & Shantz, Amanda, 2024. "A long and winding road: The hard graft of scaling social change in complex systems," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    19. Maria J. Restrepo & Margareta A. Lelea & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2016. "Second-Order Cybernetic Analysis to Re-construct Farmers’ Rationale When Regulating Milk Production," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 449-468, October.
    20. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:47-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.