Suchergebnisse

It has been almost 20 years since Shulha and Cousins (1997) published their seminal paper exploring evaluation use. The paper examined a decade, 1986 to 1996, of theory, practice, and research on evaluation use. Since that time there have been significant developments related to the phenomenon of evaluation use. Outside of evaluation a new and burgeoning field has focused on the use of research in practice and policy; in health care the term knowledge translation has been used and in social sciences knowledge mobilization. Despite the rapidly growing body of research from the knowledge field, the different terminology used in evaluation, health care, and the social sciences has created siloed bodies of knowledge, even when working on similar change processes. This may be one of the factors why the large body of literature on evaluation use has received little attention in health care and vice versa. The aim of this article is threefold: first, to examine the developments in evaluation use since Shulha and Cousins's (1997) paper; second, to explore how the knowledge fields, focusing on knowledge translation and mobilization, can help to further refine and develop our understanding of use; and third, to imagine what future research that interweaves the knowledge field with the field of program evaluation might look like and how it has the potential to serve the contexts where this research would be conducted.Il y a presque 20 ans que Shulha et Cousins (1997) ont publié leur article phare sur l'utilisation de l'évaluation. Leurs travaux ont examiné une décennie, de 1986 à 1996, de théorie, pratique et recherches sur l'utilisation de l'évaluation. Depuis lors, il y a eu d'importants développements liés au phénomène de l'utilisation de l'évaluation. Au-delà de l'évaluation, un nouveau domaine s'est développé sur l'utilisation de la recherche dans la pratique et les politiques; en santé, le terme transfert des connaissances a été utilisé et en sciences sociales, on parle de mobilisation du savoir. Malgré le corpus rapidement grandissant de recherches dans le domaine des connaissances, les diff érentes terminologies utilisées dans les domaines de l'évaluation, des sciences de la santé et des sciences sociales ont créé des silos, alors ce sont les mêmes processus de changement qui sont analysés. Ceci pourrait en partie expliquer pourquoi les écrits sur l'utilisation de l'évaluation ont reçu peu d'écho dans le domaine de la santé, et vice-versa. Cet article a trois objectifs : premièrement, d'examiner les développements en utilisation de l'évaluation depuis l'article de Shulha et Cousins (en 1997) ; deuxièmement, d'explorer la façon dont les domaines de connaissance, axés sur le transfert des connaissances et la mobilisation du savoir, peuvent nous aider à mieux comprendre l'utilisation; et troisièmement, d'imaginer les pistes de recherche à cheval sur le domaine de l'utilisation des connaissances et celui de l'évaluation de programme, et d'analyser leur intérêt pour les contextes dans lesquels ces travaux seraient menés.

Background:Interest in using arts-informed approaches within research to increase stakeholder engagement is growing; however, there is little work describing how these approaches are operationalised across contexts. This article addresses that gap by exploring the use of arts-informed approaches across three projects.
Aims and objectives:We explore how conceptualising research and evaluation as creative endeavours, particularly in arts-informed approaches to co-production, create opportunities to move knowledge into action (knowledge mobilisation). We propose an actionable configuration of context + mechanism = outcome (CMO) to understand the influence of arts-informed approaches to co-production.
Methods:Multi-case design and cross-case synthesis was conducted of three studies that used arts-informed approaches. A common focus across our cases was evidence use in the K-12 education sector; however, each engaged with this focus by involving different types of evidence and sets of education stakeholders.
Findings:Arts-informed approaches and co-production were influenced by a variety of contextual factors such as relationships between researchers and stakeholders, ethical issues of collaborative research activities, approaches to meaningful stakeholder engagement, co-production of knowledge, capacity-building support and resources, and communication between multi-stakeholder partners. Outcomes included new ways of thinking about research topics based on arts-informed approaches, more positive attitudes about co-production, more relevant and useful research and evaluation findings, and increased openness to future co-productive work.
Discussion and conclusions:Four propositions arising from this article include: (1) arts-informed approaches address context specificity and sensitivity; (2) arts-informed approaches promote engagement; (3) arts-informed approaches enhance and intertwine skills; (4) arts-informed approaches broaden thinking about impact.

AbstractThere are many ways to intertwine theoretical and applied learning to nurture the competencies required to conduct evaluation. Experiential learning opportunities remain a priority for many evaluation educators who are helping learners apply foundational skills and knowledge to practice. Evaluators develop their professional expertise in diverse venues, including through experience, through professional learning, or, as we highlight in this chapter, in graduate school. Incorporating experiential learning from a professional association into a formal graduate course requires a willingness to blend university course expectations and activities with collaborative learning experiences. Using reflective dialogue and poetry enacted through dialogic analysis and reflection, we examine enduring perceptions and learning activated from student participation in the Canadian Evaluation Society's national evaluation case competition as part of evaluation education situated within a formal university graduate course. Weaving five voices representing learners, case study coach, and course instructor, we discuss how the evaluation competition was used to deepen understanding and develop evaluator competencies.