Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations

729 views

Published on

Summary presentation of a study to track use of campaign evaluation findings of two organisations

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations

  1. 1. Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations 12th EES Biennial Conference Maastricht 28 September 2016 Dr Glenn O’Neil oneil@owlre.com www.owlre.com
  2. 2. 2 – Evaluations were carried out of two global communication campaigns in 2009/10 – Four years later, I returned to look at how the evalution findings were being used Background Evaluator Campaign Evaluation unit
  3. 3. 3 – Qualitative approach to trace, categorise and validate instances of use – Interviews with campaign staff (6-ICRC, 5-OHCHR) – Each instance of use (28-use; 6-non-use) were coded on the basis of a conceptual framework Methodology Levels: Individual Interpersonal Collective # So. An. Instance description Type Description Att. Description Att. Description Att. How Inf. Ver. ICRC 1 I1, 2, 3 y Reduce complexity of messages and products In Recomm. reviewed, considered, thought about, priority given Sa, El Discussed with campaign team, confirmed existing consensus Ex, Pe Integrated into next campaign concept and implemented in messages/produc ts developed PC ALU F, P D; I1, 2, 3 Source Anticipated (yes/no) Type e.g. Instrumental Attributes, e.g. salience, elaboration Process category - e.g. Anticipated linear use Influences e.g. funding, people Verification, e.g. documentation
  4. 4. 4 1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated 2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected 3. Use never occurred in a vacuum devoid of influences 4. Strongest influences on use were internal Key findings
  5. 5. 5 The data Instances of use What: Type of use Where: Levels of use Why: Influences on use How: Process of use
  6. 6. 6 Instrumental 13 instances Process 5 instances Conceptual 9 instances Symbolic I instance Non-use 6 instances Field People Funding External context Evaluation policies and institutions Organisational context Communication Goals and ambitions Campaign manager (2) Campaign senior / researcher (2) Campaign staff (3) Campaign staff (after) (4) 24 16 7 9 1 2 4 9 6 6 8 19 5 11 1 12 22 2 11 1 8 InfluencesInstancesSources What: Type of use Why: Influences on use
  7. 7. 7 Where: Levels of use Individual Interpersonal Collective Informal change Formal change Four Years
  8. 8. 8 How: Process of use Unexpected hop Use was not anticipated and occurred in a linear way. Unforeseen foray Use was not anticipated and occurred in a non-linear way. Direct route Use was anticipated and occurred in a linear way. A planned ramble Use was anticipated and occurred in a non-linear way. Expedition starts/stops Use was anticipated, did not occur and happened in a non-linear way. Travel plans cancelled Use was anticipated, did not occur and happened in a linear way. Surprise trip deferred Use was not anticipated, did not occur and happened in a non-linear way. Unannounced stop-over skipped Use was not anticipated, did not occur and happened in a linear way.
  9. 9. 9 1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated 2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected 3. Use never occurred in a vacuum devoid of influences 4. Strongest influences on use were internal Key findings – a reminder
  10. 10. 10 Contact details View these slides on my blog: oneil@owlre.com glennoneil www.owlre.com @glenn_oneil www.intelligentmeasurement.com Contacts:

×