Thanks for crisp summary of evaluators experiences and concerns. You have shared the articulated and unarticulated views of most evaluators. The practice of giving space to recommendation developers and implementers is a learning. In practice evaluators need all the 100-200 pages full report to record the facts. This is scientific and ethical too. The shorter version with set of recommendations are made as per the objectives of the study (ideal) and expressed needs of the sponsor (?), often more towards the later. Lot happens between these two. As evaluator, the bulk report, whether some one uses it or not, satisfies evaluators scientific urge.
Some thoughts on the sponsors (implementer) role. In reality, evaluators report with recommendations is appraised by sponsor with few recommendations compatible or of priority to them. This is a natural process.
The difficult part is coping with the expectations of the sponsors sub-groups. Typically, there are technical and political sub-groups or teams. in some situations technical teams report to an administrative team which interfaces with the polity. We often work with the technical team, and may not get access to the other teams. Technical teams in turn keep changing their expectation as per the administrative/political systems expectations of a policy or policy change. This is sensitive and perhaps rapidly changes with time, much more rapid than the evaluation time. This is the crux. The report and recommendation parts are trivial irrespective of the process they are made. The issue of concern is the delay in the time between report submission and policy actions in developing countries.
Regards,
Dr D Rama Rao Former Director, ICAR-NAARM, Hyderabad Former ND, NAIP & DDG (Engg), ICAR, New Delhi Mobile:+91 9441273700
RE: Reporting and supporting evaluation use and influence
Dear Jean,
Thanks for crisp summary of evaluators experiences and concerns. You have shared the articulated and unarticulated views of most evaluators. The practice of giving space to recommendation developers and implementers is a learning. In practice evaluators need all the 100-200 pages full report to record the facts. This is scientific and ethical too. The shorter version with set of recommendations are made as per the objectives of the study (ideal) and expressed needs of the sponsor (?), often more towards the later. Lot happens between these two. As evaluator, the bulk report, whether some one uses it or not, satisfies evaluators scientific urge.
Some thoughts on the sponsors (implementer) role. In reality, evaluators report with recommendations is appraised by sponsor with few recommendations compatible or of priority to them. This is a natural process.
The difficult part is coping with the expectations of the sponsors sub-groups. Typically, there are technical and political sub-groups or teams. in some situations technical teams report to an administrative team which interfaces with the polity. We often work with the technical team, and may not get access to the other teams. Technical teams in turn keep changing their expectation as per the administrative/political systems expectations of a policy or policy change. This is sensitive and perhaps rapidly changes with time, much more rapid than the evaluation time. This is the crux. The report and recommendation parts are trivial irrespective of the process they are made. The issue of concern is the delay in the time between report submission and policy actions in developing countries.
Regards,
Dr D Rama Rao
Former Director, ICAR-NAARM, Hyderabad
Former ND, NAIP & DDG (Engg), ICAR, New Delhi
Mobile:+91 9441273700