Summary: Evaluation Systems What Are They And Why Study Them?

Read the summary and the most important questions on Evaluation Systems What Are They and Why Study Them?

• 0 Background

• What are the keywords of this article and what am I to learn?

  The keywords of this article are:
  

  1. accreditation and evaluation;
  2. evaluation approach;
     
  3. experiments;
  4. inspection;
     
  5. institutionalization of evaluation;
     
  6. system of evaluation

  I am to learn which roles all of these concepts play in literature about what an evaluation system is and why evaluation systems are worth studying.

• What do Rist & Stame (2002) argue about evaluation studies?

  Rist and Stame (2002) argue that it is no longer wise to refer to single evaluation studies, but to 'streams of studies and data'.

• What was Elliot Stern's important remark in 2006 according to Leeuw & Furubo (2008)?

  Elliot Stern requests to reflect upon developments within evaluation and the role it plays in society. He raised the issue of the extent to which evaluators will be able to continue to speak ''truth to power'', because it is known from the field of policy analysis that succes can breed its own failure.

• 1 When can a Set of Evaluative Activities be Called an Evaluation System?: Four Criteria

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• Why did Williams and Imam (2007) edit a monograph on evaluation systems?

  Williams and Imam (2007) edit a monograph on evaluation systems in which system thinking and its relevance for the practice of evaluation are discussed:
  

  1. thinking in terms of (evaluation) systems helps us to understand what the boundaries are of what ‘lies inside and what lies outside a particular inquiry’ (i.e. evaluation) (2007: 6);
  2. it also helps us to understand that systems can only exist in reference to other
     systems and their boundaries (e.g. the client system, the practitioner’s system, the evaluators’ system) (Hummelbrunner, 2007).

• How do Furubo and Sandahl (2002) define evaluation?

  Furubo and Sandahl (2002) argue: when evaluations are no longer commissioned and conducted on an ad hoc basis but through more permanent arrangements, which aim to guarantee, in advance, the supply of evaluative information,
  it is then wise to think in terms of evaluation systems.see as an indicator of a mature evaluation culture

• What are the 4 criteria in labelling a set of evaluative activities as a system?

  1. A distinctive epistemological perspective
  2. Organizational responsibility
  3. Permanence
  4. A focus on the intended use of evaluations
     

• What does organizational responsibility mean according to Leeuw & Furubo (2008)?

  Organizational responsibility means that the evaluation activities are carried out by organizations and institutions where there is more than one active party: one that produces evaluative knowledge and one that requests evaluative knowledge (and no evaluation activities only (or largely) by ‘lonely’ or sole-trading evaluators).

• What do Leeuw & Furubo mean with the 3d criterion 'Permanence' in order for evaluation activities to be called an evaluation system?

  To be labeled as an evaluative system, evaluative activities are not ad hoc but there should be a certain permanence or history in the activities involved.
  Also permanence implies a certain amount of activities over time which includes specific publications, connection wit media and links with appropiate professional societies.

• What do Leeuw & Furbo mean with the 4th criterion 'focus on intended use'?

  The information from evaluative activities is (institutionally) linked to decision and implementation processes. Evaluative activities are planned in advance, taking into account the point at which the information should be submitted to decision-makers – preferably in an institutionalized way.

• What is an important difference between Evaluation paradigms (tradition/theory) versus Evaluation Systems?

  Although evaluations systems can be based on a particular evaluation paradigm, theory or ‘tradition’, the most important difference is that systems are characterized in terms of organizational capacity, sustainability, money, power and interactions with clients, stakeholders and user systems.