Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
USING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH FOR LEADERSHIP PROGRAM EVALUATION
An Evaluation of the IIE Leadership Development for Mobilizing Reproductive Health Program
Session Objectives
To share the Action Reflection methodology as RCLA and IIE used it in the evaluation of the IIE-LDM program
Sharing our experiences around this theme and reflect on the merits and challenges of participatory evaluation methodologies
Session Content
LDM Background and Rationale for Evaluation
RCLA & overview of Methodology
Gains and Challenges of Methodology
Questions?
Institute of International Education (IIE) A leader in helping to solve global issues through
international exchange of people and ideas Designs and implements programs of study and
training for individuals from all sectors -- over 250 programs each year in more than 175 countries
IIE’s West Coast Center created and managed the Leadership Development for Mobilizing Reproductive Health (LDM) program with funding from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation in 1999
Created and managed by the Institute of International Education (IIE)
Generously funded by The David & Lucile Packard Foundation from 2001-2011
Leadership Development for Mobilizing Reproductive Health (LDM)
To build a critical core of well-trained leaders who have the vision, commitment, knowledge and skills to improve reproductive health and family planning services in five focus countries: Ethiopia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines
LDM: Overall Aim
A total of 1200 fellows from Ethiopia, Philippines, Nigeria, Pakistan and India
Training Study tours Establishing and supporting
networks and collaborations Mini-grants Working toward sustainability
of leadership development in country
LDM Fellows and Program Activities
About RCLA
RCLA recognizes that at its best, leadership for the public good is a collective achievement.
Launched in 2003 with support from the Ford Foundation
Part of NYU Wagner School Creates collaborative learning environments that foster
genuine connections Pioneers customized, experiential leadership programs Conducts rigorous social science research Integrates the best of scholarship and practice to create
knowledge “from the ground up”
Principles of PA Research as used by RCLA
Doing research with leaders rather than on leaders Co-production of knowledge Creating activities for co-researchers to observe &
analyze their own experience Making room for leaders to share their experiences
and learn from others Co-producing research products that are useful for
practitioners
Why RCLA/IIE used PAR to evaluate the LDM program?
Allowed us to engage key stakeholders, national evaluators and IIE staff in the evaluation process as “co-researchers” or “co-inquirers”
We collectively assessed the program’s effectiveness, gains, challenges and lessons learned
We also determined together how to develop future actions based on the learning
What was the Purpose of the LDM Evaluation?
Consider LDM’s relevance, effectiveness and achievements in reaching its goals and short-term outcomes
Encourage analysis and discussion of the program outcomes and accomplishments as well as reflection on the challenges and lessons learned
Foster active involvement of stakeholders in evaluation process
Provide opportunities for key stakeholders to discuss next steps
Scope of Evaluation
Conducted in 5 countries: Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Philippines
Evaluation Team: National evaluators and RCLA evaluators with LDM staff support
2006-2011
Mixed Methods Approach
Document Review Action Reflection Groups Key Informant Interviews National Meetings
Participatory Project Management
Initial and Final Team workshops Team building Collaborative design of methodology and analysis of
findings Ongoing communications through email, telephone, Skype,
conference calls, Google group and the LDM wiki Flexibility according to cultural and program contexts
Action Reflection Groups (AR) A methodology developed by RCLA specifically for the
purposes of this evaluation Inspired by the Cooperative Inquiry approach Allows collective reflection and sense making CI and the AR groups call for taking into consideration
the experience and knowledge of practitioners
Action Reflection Group Design
Three AR groups were formed in each country, and each met three times for a day-long session
Each AR group meeting was facilitated by a National Evaluator specially trained in the methodology
National Evaluators designed the AR groups based on the research questions
Circles of Action/Reflection
National Meetings
Designed in each country after data analysis
Designed to reflect on the evaluation’s initial findings and discuss sustainable next steps
Included diverse stakeholders from the RH/FP and leadership development fields
Gains of the Methodology Action Reflection groups were experienced as
participatory and empowering and provided a space where participants discovered important insights that led to concrete action
The evaluation was a rich learning experience for Fellows and Evaluators
The methodology allowed for the collection of a large amount of data in a short time
The evaluation’s approach was fitting for LDM given the collective nature of the program and its approach to leadership
Participants and evaluators stayed highly engaged and committed to the process
Challenges of the Methodology
Some Fellows and Evaluators perceived the evaluation to be too process-oriented
The documentation and codification of the data according to the research matrix took everyone more time than anticipated
The methodology requires excellent documentation and communications, which demanded extra attention and follow-up.
QUESTIONS?
21
Contact Us
Research Center for Leadership in Action NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public ServiceThe Puck Building295 Lafayette Street, 2nd FloorNew York, NY 10012www.wagner.nyu.edu/leadership
Amparo Hofmann-Pinilla: [email protected]
Institute for International Education Cheryl Francisconi
23
