Who We Are: Findings from the American Evaluation Association's Independent Consulting Topical Interest Group 2015 Decennial Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (164) ◽  
pp. 27-41
Author(s):  
Tania Jarosewich ◽  
Matthew L. Feldmann ◽  
Norma Martínez‐Rubin ◽  
Nicole Clark
2006 ◽  
Vol 2006 (111) ◽  
pp. 9-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Jarosewich ◽  
Victoria L. Essenmacher ◽  
Christina Olenik Lynch ◽  
Jennifer E. Williams ◽  
Jo Ann Doino-Ingersoll

1997 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hallie Preskill ◽  
Valerie Caracelli

This article presents the results of a survey sent to Evaluation Use Topical Interest Group (TIG) members for the purpose of ascertaining their perceptions about and experiences with evaluation use. Fifty-four percent ( n = 282) of the 530 members surveyed responded. These respondents agree that the major purposes of evaluation are to facilitate organizational learning, provide information for decision making, improve programs, and determine the merit or worth of the evaluand. Performance-results oriented evaluations, formative evaluations, as well as evaluations with a participatory emphasis, organizational learning emphasis, and practitioner-centered action research or empowerment approaches were all viewed as more important today than they were 10 years ago. Survey findings revealed that the most important strategies for facilitating use are planning for use at the beginning of an evaluation, identifying and prioritizing intended users and intended uses of the evaluation, designing the evaluation within resource limitations, involving stakeholders in the evaluation process, communicating findings to stakeholders as the evaluation progresses, and developing a communication and reporting plan. This survey represents a comprehensive effort to understand TIG respondents' views on evaluation use and should help further discussion on developing and advancing our theoretical and practical knowledge.


2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
Melissa Stevens

The following articles represent the top three papers from the first annual SfAA Tourism and Heritage Topical Interest Group (TIG) Student Paper Competition, which was established to recognize student contributions to the anthropology of tourism and heritage. The paper competition was created to compliment the existing Valene Smith Student Poster Award, which was in its sixth year in 2012. The winning student posters are also featured in this issue. We received 25 submissions from students all over the world which was remarkable for a competition in its first year. Originally, the plan was to select the top five papers for inclusion in a TIG organized paper session at the 2012 SfAA meetings in Baltimore. Because the number of submissions was greater than anticipated however, and because so many of the submissions were exceptional, we decided to organize a double paper session instead. The selected papers represented new and innovative approaches to tourism and heritage issues and constituted a diverse array of topics, including explorations of the politics of competing constructions of heritage and identity in the context of tourism, the role of art and visual culture in recording and representing both local and tourist perceptions of heritage, and the development of heritage tourism in conflict zones and disaster areas. The paper session was well attended and the student papers were enthusiastically received by audience members.


1997 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Robert Winthrop

Launching this column on anthropology and public policy has prompted some interesting comments from colleagues on the challenges we face in making ourselves effective and competent actors in the policy domain. In addition, the SfAA's 1997 annual meeting in Seattle included a forum on increasing our policy effectiveness, which brought together representatives from a number of the organization's policy-oriented groups, as well as other knowledgeable colleagues. These groups included the AIDS Advisory Committee, Indian Affairs Committee, Human Rights and Environment group, the Aging and Disability topical interest group (TIG), and the Intellectual Property Rights TIG. Among the questions raised at that forum: How can we learn from each other's successes and failures in policy advocacy? What activities, strategies, and techniques have been particularly effective in communicating an anthropological perspective to policy makers or potential allies? What steps could the SfAA take to become a better (and better-known) resource to agencies and groups seeking an anthropological perspective on a particular issue?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document