Evaluation: Evaluation Reporting - Another thought!

Table: A potential framework for conceptualising evaluative analysis

ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS
Four components		Brief description	Types of questions addressed
What	FINDINGS - raw Description of findings		What worked, for whom, under what circumstances, and why
How and Why	FINDINGS - analysed Analysis of findings Conclusions about findings
So What do the findings say about the evaluand	CONCLUSIONS about the policy / programme based on the findings		Merit or worth (quality or value) of a programme or policy, and/or areas for improvement
So What do the findings mean	SIGNIFICANCE and implications of the findings for policy / programme		Policy and programme decision-making and/or programme improvement questions which typically initiate an evaluation

 

 

I just came across this table that I obviously copied from another source - but that's the problem - I don't know the source. It's titled "A potential framework for conceptualising evaluation analysis" and thus the "s" makes me think it's from a Brit, Canadian, Aussie, or Kiwi. Wow! That really narrows it down....

Anyway, as shown, it's four analytic components are linked to broad evaluation questions and may provide another way to format evaluation reports.

Question 1 is "What?" and is where one would address the findings to date of the evaluation. It's meant to be a place where raw data are presented, or, in other words, results are described.

Question 2 is "How and Why?" and is where data are actually analyzed and compared to generate conclusions about what resulted, for whom results were greatest, etc.

Question 3 is "So what do the findings say about the evaluand (i.e., program, policy, etc.)?" and relates to what most of us think about when we think evaluation - the merit or worth of the evaluand. Many reports stop short of answering this question even though the basis of evaluation is to draw such conclusions.

Question 4 is "So what do the findings mean?" and is where the significance of findings and implications for the evaluand are discussed. Again, based on my report reading, few reports address such a question, especially when results are not positive.

If anyone finds the source for this please let me know so I can give the author his or her due. Again, while it nicely identifies some of the questions driving evaluation analysis, it may also be a nice guide for framing reports!