Here is one version, based on Stern et al (2012) BROADENING THE RANGE
OF DESIGNS AND METHODS FOR IMPACT EVALUATIONS
A year later, in a review of the literature on the use of evaluability assessments, I proposed a similar but different version:
In this diagram "Evaluation Questions" are subsumed within the wider category of "Stakeholder demands". "Programme Attributes" have been disaggregated into "Project Design" (especially Theory of Change) and "Data Availability". "Available Designs" in effect disappears into the background, and if there was a 3D version, behind Evaluation Design.
Rick Davies, you are asking a diadic question but giving triadic schema, this is not consistent; Your schema says that selection of a design depends on evaluation question and program attributes - this is diadic. So, your diagram is a good example that shows problems connected with 'design thinking' - no logical foundations, just design.
ReplyDelete