Valuing Different Perspectives - evaluation and evaluative knowledge

重视不同的观点 - 评价和评价知识

• 批准号: AH/L01310X/2
• 负责人: Peter Matthews
• 金额: $ 4.96万
• 依托单位: University of Stirling
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2014
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2014 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FL01310X%2F2
• 关键词: Valuing; Different; Perspectives; evaluation; evaluative

A central aim of the Connected Communities programme has been to carry out research with communities, not on communities. The AHRC are now keen to understand what the legacy of this investment in research with communities has been. The ambitious and complex nature of the resulting projects means there are significant challenges for attempts to evaluate legacy and whether they will be successful. The aim of this research will be to explore different approaches to evaluating projects and produce guidelines for future Connected Communities and similar projects. This will be carried out by delivering two evaluations of the same projects. One evaluation will be participatory, led by community partners; one will be academic-led. Academic- or expert-led evaluations, such as those common in the social sciences, provide many ways to find out "what works" or provides value-for-money - randomised controlled trials; large scale surveys; cost-benefit analysis; theories of change; realist evaluation etc. Such evaluations may involve the use of quantitative or qualitative methods that are defined, created, and analysed by academic researchers, often regarded as experts, but who may be removed from the communities themselves which have been subject to a policy or project. Importantly, the evaluation criteria are also set by the academic research team, typically before the research project has begun. The evaluator has the power to define whether something has been a "success" or "failure" which can have a long-lasting impact.In comparison, evaluations that are shaped and led by the community members at the heart of the projects are now increasingly used to assess the success and legacy of initiatives. These aim to capture the "local knowledge" of implementation and what was of value to the communities themselves. They respond to a concern that many of the softer outcomes of projects, that are often difficult to quantitatively measure, are not captured or even devalued by expert-led evaluations. Participatory evaluations aim to give communities the power to define "success" or "failure". This project, and the simultaneous evaluations at the heart of it, aims to explore these questions of power in the production of knowledge by asking what happens when community partners lead an evaluation and academics lead an evaluation of the same project. Are the research outputs produced different? And why might this be the case?To answer these questions, the project will run workshops to supplement the evaluations. Attended by community members and academics, the first will discuss the processes, commonalities, differences, values and limitations of the various evaluation approaches chosen. The second workshop will develop a series of evaluation guidelines suited for future community-based research. Rather than being a "toolkit", this will be an exploration of the different methods used in the different contexts and what worked, or did not work, and why. This will enable future projects to make better informed decisions as to what evaluation methods they might use when planning community projects. We cannot be prescriptive about the evaluation questions the community-led evaluation will ask. The academic evaluation will go back to original project briefs and align the original aims with the methods that the research team can use to ask whether the project has delivered what it set out to. The project also aims to explore the broader legacy of the Connected Communities programme. A key question in both evaluation sites will be the role of the AHRC as a funder of this type of activity and how this can be improved in future.

互联社区方案的核心目标是与社区进行研究，而不是在社区上进行研究。AHRC现在热衷于了解这项社区研究投资的遗产是什么。由此产生的项目具有雄心勃勃和复杂的性质，这意味着评估遗产及其是否会成功的努力面临着巨大的挑战。这项研究的目的将是探索评估项目的不同方法，并为未来的互联社区和类似项目制定指导方针。这将通过对同一项目进行两次评价来实现。一项评估将是参与性的，由社区合作伙伴领导；另一项评估将由学术领导。学术或专家主导的评估，如社会科学中常见的评估，提供了许多方法来找出“什么是有效的”或提供物有所值的随机对照试验；大规模调查；成本效益分析；变革理论；现实主义评估等。这种评估可能涉及使用定量或定性方法，这些方法是由学术研究人员定义、创建和分析的，这些研究人员通常被视为专家，但他们可能被从受政策或项目制约的社区本身中剔除。重要的是，评估标准也是由学术研究团队制定的，通常是在研究项目开始之前。评估者有权定义某件事是“成功”还是“失败”，从而产生持久的影响。相比之下，由处于项目核心的社区成员制定和领导的评估现在越来越多地被用来评估倡议的成功和遗产。这些活动旨在获取实施的“当地知识”以及对社区本身有价值的内容。它们回应了一种关切，即往往难以量化衡量的许多较软的项目成果没有被专家领导的评价所反映，甚至没有被低估。参与性评估旨在赋予社区界定“成功”或“失败”的权力。这个项目及其核心的同时评估旨在通过询问当社区合作伙伴领导评估和学者领导对同一项目的评估时会发生什么，来探索这些在知识生产中的权力问题。产生的研究成果是否不同？为什么会这样呢？为了回答这些问题，该项目将举办研讨会来补充评估。由社区成员和学者参加的第一次会议将讨论所选择的各种评估方法的过程、共同点、差异、价值和局限性。第二期讲习班将制定一系列适合未来社区研究的评价指南。这不是一个“工具包”，而是探索在不同环境中使用的不同方法，以及哪些方法有效，哪些方法无效，以及为什么。这将使未来的项目能够就它们在规划社区项目时可能使用的评估方法做出更明智的决定。我们不能对社区领导的评估将提出的评估问题说明性。学术评估将回到最初的项目概要，并将原始目标与研究团队可以用来询问项目是否实现了设定的目标的方法保持一致。该项目还旨在探索互联社区方案的更广泛遗产。这两个评价地点的一个关键问题将是AHRC作为这类活动的资助者的作用，以及今后如何改进这一作用。

项目成果

Social media, community development and social capital

社交媒体、社区发展和社会资本

• DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsv040
• 发表时间: 2016
• 期刊: Community Development Journal
• 影响因子: 1.5
• 作者: Matthews P

Doing and evaluating community research - A process and outcomes approach for communities and researchers

进行和评估社区研究 - 社区和研究人员的过程和结果方法

• 发表时间: 2015
• 作者: Matthews, P

Engaging Wester Hailes - Findings from the Valuing Different Perspectives Community Evaluation.

参与 Wester Hailes - 从重视不同视角的社区评估中得出的结论。

• 发表时间: 2015
• 作者: Astbury, J

Valuing Academic Perspectives

重视学术观点

• 发表时间: 2015
• 作者: Matthews, P