Hi Andrea (and all)
There used to be an RCUK rule of thumb that any large public engagement project should be spending around 10% of its costs on evaluation.
I don't know if that's still used (Lewis Hou and I were e-discussing it the other week, so he may be able to add more) but it's always felt like a good starting point.
Dom
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Gene Rowe<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 08/09/2015 07:57
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The value of evaluation
Hi Andrea
A colleague and I looked at this one... saw the fee... did a 'double-take'... shook our heads... and binned the email.
Regards
Gene R
On 8 September 2015 at 07:41, Andrea Bandelli <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Last week a call for evaluators for the project Hypatia (see http://www.ecsite.eu/sites/default/files/hypatia_call_for_evaluator.pdf) was published on this list. The project in question aims at bringing lasting change in the way schools, science museums, research institutions and industry engage teenage girls in STEM across Europe.
After reading the call for evaluators, I was quite concerned about the value that evaluation is given in projects like this one.
The expectations of the evaluation study are very, very high; the amount of work requested is daunting (site visit, interviews and surveys with multiple stakeholders and target audiences, analysis of additional documents, and production of 4 written reports); all this for a big European project (14 partners, 1.5 million euro budget).
An ambitious 3 year evaluation study paid €8.000 (£5.800) - or 0.5% of the project budget.
I wonder what level of quality can be expected with this approach, and I wonder if it is ethically correct to downplay both the significance of the evaluation (by giving it so limited resources within the project), and the professional standards of those who are active in the field (with a remuneration which is arguably insufficient to cover the full requirements of the call).
The report "Evaluating Evaluation” by Maurice Davies and Christian Heath highlighted the disappointment in noticing how evaluation is seen as a necessary chore but remains marginal to the work of museums, leading to negative consequences for museums, policy makers and funders. In my opinion, a call like this one does not help to make evaluation more relevant, alas.
I would be interested to hear what other colleagues think about this.
Thank you,
Andrea.
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday)
• set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages)
• signoff psci-com (to leave the list)
• Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the Royal Society of Chemistry has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the Royal Society of Chemistry cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the Royal Society of Chemistry owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The Royal Society of Chemistry acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The Royal Society of Chemistry does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday)
• set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages)
• signoff psci-com (to leave the list)
• Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask]
Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
|