Competitive champions versus cooperative advocates

Alison Rogers, A. Gullickson, J. King, E. McKinley
{"title":"Competitive champions versus cooperative advocates","authors":"Alison Rogers, A. Gullickson, J. King, E. McKinley","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v18i42.721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nBackground: Evaluation offers non-profit organizations an opportunity to improve their services, demonstrate achievements, and be accountable. The extant literature identifies individuals who can enhance the uptake of evaluation as evaluation champions. However, a paucity of detail is available regarding how to identify them and the support they require. \nPurpose: This research investigated the characteristics and motivations of evaluation champions and examined how they promoted and embedded evaluation in an organizational system. \nSetting: Australian human and social service non-profit organizations. \nResearch design: Drawing upon the literature and social interdependence theory, the research took an interpretivist perspective to collaboratively generate knowledge about evaluation champions. The aim was to understand and develop a reconstruction of the characteristics of individuals. This article constitutes a component of a larger research project. \nData Collection and Analysis: This research used purposive sampling to recruit champions working in Australian non-profit organizations, who were identified via descriptive criteria gleaned from a literature review. The research involved interviewing 17 champions, four of whom also participated in organizational case studies. Analysis of the semi-structured interviews and case studies generated information about the activities, strategies, motivations, and attributes of individuals who championed and advocated for evaluation. \nFindings: This article argues that evaluation advocates is a preferable descriptor when attempting to embed evaluation by cultivating mutually beneficial interactions and cooperative working relationships. This research defines evaluation advocates as individuals who motivate others and provide energy, interest, and enthusiasm by connecting evaluation with colleagues’ personal aspirations and the organizational goals to make judgements about effectiveness. This article includes a field guide to facilitate evaluation advocates’ identification, recruitment, support, and development.","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v18i42.721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Background: Evaluation offers non-profit organizations an opportunity to improve their services, demonstrate achievements, and be accountable. The extant literature identifies individuals who can enhance the uptake of evaluation as evaluation champions. However, a paucity of detail is available regarding how to identify them and the support they require. Purpose: This research investigated the characteristics and motivations of evaluation champions and examined how they promoted and embedded evaluation in an organizational system. Setting: Australian human and social service non-profit organizations. Research design: Drawing upon the literature and social interdependence theory, the research took an interpretivist perspective to collaboratively generate knowledge about evaluation champions. The aim was to understand and develop a reconstruction of the characteristics of individuals. This article constitutes a component of a larger research project. Data Collection and Analysis: This research used purposive sampling to recruit champions working in Australian non-profit organizations, who were identified via descriptive criteria gleaned from a literature review. The research involved interviewing 17 champions, four of whom also participated in organizational case studies. Analysis of the semi-structured interviews and case studies generated information about the activities, strategies, motivations, and attributes of individuals who championed and advocated for evaluation. Findings: This article argues that evaluation advocates is a preferable descriptor when attempting to embed evaluation by cultivating mutually beneficial interactions and cooperative working relationships. This research defines evaluation advocates as individuals who motivate others and provide energy, interest, and enthusiasm by connecting evaluation with colleagues’ personal aspirations and the organizational goals to make judgements about effectiveness. This article includes a field guide to facilitate evaluation advocates’ identification, recruitment, support, and development.
竞争的拥护者和合作的拥护者
摘要背景:评估为非营利组织提供了改进服务、展示成就和承担责任的机会。现有文献将能够提高评估接受度的个人确定为评估冠军。然而,关于如何识别他们以及他们需要的支持,却缺乏详细信息。目的:本研究调查了评价倡导者的特征和动机,并考察了他们如何在组织系统中促进和嵌入评价。背景:澳大利亚人力和社会服务非营利组织。研究设计:该研究借鉴了文献和社会相互依存理论,采用解释主义的视角,共同生成关于评价冠军的知识。目的是了解和发展个人特征的重建。这篇文章是一个更大的研究项目的组成部分。数据收集和分析:这项研究使用了有目的的抽样来招募在澳大利亚非营利组织工作的拥护者,他们是通过从文献综述中收集的描述性标准确定的。这项研究采访了17名冠军,其中4人还参与了组织案例研究。对半结构化访谈和案例研究的分析产生了关于支持和倡导评估的个人的活动、策略、动机和属性的信息。研究结果:本文认为,当试图通过培养互利的互动和合作的工作关系来嵌入评估时,评估倡导者是一个更好的描述。本研究将评价倡导者定义为通过将评价与同事的个人愿望和组织目标联系起来,从而对有效性做出判断,从而激励他人并提供能量、兴趣和热情的个人。本文包括一个现场指南,以促进评估倡导者的识别、招聘、支持和发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信