Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Donna M. Mertens Independent Consultant Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, MESI Spring Training Minneapolis MN March 2015.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Donna M. Mertens Independent Consultant Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, MESI Spring Training Minneapolis MN March 2015."— Presentation transcript:

1 Donna M. Mertens Independent Consultant Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, MESI Spring Training Minneapolis MN March 2015

2  Name, position, organization (no acronyms please).  Where do you come from?  What is your experience in evaluation?  What has been your experience with social justice?  What do you want to get out of this workshop? Mertens MESI March 2015 2 2/19/2015

3 PhilosophicalAssumptions AxiologyRespect for cultural norms; support for human rights and social justice; reciprocity OntologyIssues of power & critical interrogation of multiple realities: social, political, cultural, economic, race/ethnic, gender, age, religion and disability values to unmask those that sustain an oppressive status quo EpistemologyIssues of power & Interactive link; knowledge is socially and historically located; trusting relationship. Methodology Qualitative (dialogic)/ Quantitative / Mixed Methods; Context 2/19/2015 Mertens MESI March 2015 3

4 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 4 Phase 1 Qual: Identify stakeholder s; build relationship s; analyze documents Quant: Identify available demographic and environmenta l data Phase 2 Qual: Interview s, focus groups, town meetings Quant: Establish baseline for pollutants and health status Phase 3 Qual: Develop interventi ons based on stakehold er input Quant/Qual: Pilot test intervention s & data collection Phase 4 Quant: process assessment of implementatio n; pretests Qual: observe and interview stakeholder groups during intervention Phase 5 Quant: Post- test measures Qual: Interviews, observations, policy planning

5  Explicit goals?  Implicit goals?  Contradiction between explicit goals and behaviors?  Changes in stance over time; changes in personnel over time  Explicit: Deaf people in the courts  Implicit: I don’t really need to deal with these multicultural issues because we are all white and well educated/ of British extraction 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 5

6  “ism” present: depicting intended beneficiary as “less than” member of powerful majority  assuming problem is knowledge-based – not social/cultural/oppression  Problem: Self esteem; they just don’t care; have babies to get welfare $$  Problem: Ignorance (people with DA voting in Pakistan; HIVAIDS in Botswana) 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 6

7  Tell them what they need to know, e.g., you have a right to vote and this is how you do it; you can say no or use a condom  Acknowledge the complexity of the solution that is needed as compared to the services that are offered; develop partnerships to address complexity  Use prior research and evaluation and applicable theories (e.g., developmental psychology or change theory); best practices  Consult with community about potential solutions: Address the meaning of the experience in their lives (HIVAIDS), connect solution to experienced needs (dancing, healthy cooking) 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 7

8  Who to involve? How to involve?  Involvement throughout entire cycle of study: questions, methods, data collection, use  Notice: who is not here? Deaf people? Only people who I am comfortable with? 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 8

9  Use low tech radio shows to solicit community members to make contact via mobile phones; do follow up interviews  Use smartphones for short surveys  Web based recruitment; data collection and dissemination  GPS and mapping  An uncomfortable topic: sex with children; drug dealing; gang activity; sex with same sex partner 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 9

10  Appeal to shared desire to provide effective services addressing the needs of marginalized populations: process and impact evaluation  Argue for the primacy of the needs of the community and disadvantaged clients  Find a champion  Build a coalition  They don’t want this type of service; they won’t come…. 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 10

11  Finding higher ground  What are you going to do if you have negative findings? 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 11

12  Most Significant Change: Davies and Dart (2005)  ‘During the last month, in your opinion, what was the most significant change that took place for participants in the program?’ p. 10  Other PAR strategies (Robert Chambers)  Know the literacy level; comfort in speaking in groups  Inuit culture: Children would not speak to the evaluator. 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 12

13  How to keep people safe?  Sex with same sex partner is not accepted in culture, is against the law, could be punished by death 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 13

14  Wealth and status, gender, ethnicity, age group, sexual orientation, disability, deafness, refugee, immigrant, religion  Homogeneous groups; individual interviews  Supportive accommodations  Respect and meaningful involvement 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 14

15  Present actionable results; identify clear options for possible results and associated actions  Identify strategies to overcome barriers and support change  Share results in clear and understandable manners to full range of stakeholders  Share results with those who can advocate for change (Cook, 2014)  South Asia policy makers and program developers 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 15

16  Form coalitions  Press releases  Transparency  Present to multiple audiences in multiple formats 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 16

17  Advocate for good evaluation (standards); advocate for justice  Evaluators have to be objective; they can’t be advocates. 2/19/2015Mertens MESI March 2015 17

18  Mertens, D. M. & Wilson, A. (2012). Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide. NY: Guilford.  Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with qual, quant and mixed methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research & evaluation. NY: Guilford.  Mertens, D. M. & Ginsberg, P. (2009).(Eds.) Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  American Evaluation Association (2011). Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation. AEA. Mertens MESI March 2015 18 2/19/2015

19 Donna M. Mertens, PhD Independent Consultant Donna.Mertens@Gallaudet.edu Mertens MESI March 2015 19 2/19/2015


Download ppt "Donna M. Mertens Independent Consultant Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, MESI Spring Training Minneapolis MN March 2015."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google