LeaRN

Linkage for Education and Research in Nursing (LEARN) : a Caribbean Initiative

LEARN  Project

  •  Q 1) To plan and implement your evaluation

Our project is in process of redevelopment. As part of this there is an evaluation plan which builds on the plan from our original effort. We would appreciate ongoing tools and website references to enable us to plan our evaluation more completely. As we implement the evaluation we will continue to look for opportunities to maximize the insights and shared learnings.

  •  Q 2)  To develop capacities in evaluation in your project and / or organization

In order to proceed and excel in the evaluation of this project, we will be continuing to work with experts in the area of OM to ensure that we are adhering to the methodology and structuring our evaluation to enhance the results obtained. I believe we will be seeking an external SUMMATIVE evaluator for the final stages of the project which will be a consideration – we are not certain of the credentials and competencies of this individual at this time and may require assistance.

 It is a significant concern to our team as to how we are going to be inclusive with our boundary partners in the evaluation. I think it would be helpful to us to have examples and/or suggested linkages to get us through this critical phase of the evaluation.

 In planning for our second phase of the project, we want to more closely monitor and evaluate a number of aspects of the project PLUS we wish to be responsive to the monitoring and evaluation needs of our various boundary partners.

 IDRC has very graciously offered us training as a team on two occasions in the OM methodology which has significantly enhanced our capacity as a team. It would be our hope that we would continue to hone these skills together and potentially work to mentor our ‘newcomers’ to the team. Of course, this means that we will continue to look to experts within the IDRC family to enable us to do this.

  •  Q 3) To network with others on evaluation

Networking is increasingly important in our work. It is not clear to me at this point whether e-networking is adequate. Websites and ‘emails’ are good, however, the events of the last two days have once again reiterated the need for f2f interactions. We simply do not get a good sense of the range and scope of the various products, the skills and potential sharings of the various partners, and the work-able solutions for joint learning, unless we are together.  

 I also wonder if there is a possibility for some type of ‘connection’ structure that enables evaluation sharing. Even regional development sessions for evaluation held annually might help – so bringing together regional representatives to talk about their work and their evaluation challenges. In between we could continue to dialogue using e-connections.

  •  Q 4) To document, share and innovate on approaches to evaluation in ICT4D

It would be useful for me to see publications and examples of such documents and innovations on a regular basis. This might be achieved through the website or through some forum. The only way to learn about these changes and emergent opportunities will be through a more transparent and ‘faster’ sharing of these ideas.

 Buzz Group – OM

1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Flexibility
  • People-focused
  • Emphasis on improvement

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • Progress markers – how to determine the right ones at the right times?
  • Terminology/jargon
  • Focusing on the right boundary partners?

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • Strategizing to include boundary partners to inform progress markers – Boundary partners (i.e., nurses) are heterogenous, how do we address and remain inclusive – How much monitoring (when) in order to be necessary yet sufficient?


Buzz Group – MSC

1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Complementary / mixed methods
  • No preconceived criteria
  • Equality in input

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • Forced Change
  • Credibility with Funders/decision makers
  • Individual vs. collective

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • Who do we assemble to make the selection
  • Is there an adequate or threshold # of stories needed to increase confidence

Buzz Group – GEM

1) General aspects that you find appealing:

  • Utility in microprojects
  • Role in context (not generalized across all countries)

2) General aspects you find challenging or that are not yet clear:

  • Caution gender is not female only – age relationships and gender

3) Pressing questions or comments in relation to if / how the approach may be practically applied in your project context:

  • Given the lack of sex disaggregation data how can we make comparisons?
  • Does GEM’s basis for inequity predetermine the outcome?
  • Do males appropriate tech differently than women?
  • Is there increase of gender bias against men?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: