Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
Tracking Use of Campaign
Evaluation Findings of Two
International Organisations
12th EES Biennial Conference
Maastricht
28...
2
– Evaluations were carried out of two global
communication campaigns in 2009/10
– Four years later, I returned to look a...
3
– Qualitative approach to trace, categorise and
validate instances of use
– Interviews with campaign staff (6-ICRC, 5-OH...
4
1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated
2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected
3. Use never occur...
5
The data
Instances
of use
What: Type of use
Where: Levels of use
Why: Influences on use
How: Process of use
6
Instrumental
13 instances
Process
5 instances
Conceptual
9 instances
Symbolic
I instance
Non-use
6 instances
Field
Peopl...
7
Where: Levels of use
Individual Interpersonal Collective
Informal change
Formal change
Four
Years
8
How: Process of use
Unexpected hop Use was not anticipated and occurred
in a linear way.
Unforeseen foray Use was not an...
9
1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated
2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected
3. Use never occur...
10
Contact details
View these slides on my blog:
oneil@owlre.com
glennoneil
www.owlre.com
@glenn_oneil
www.intelligentmeas...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations

733 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Summary presentation of a study to track use of campaign evaluation findings of two organisations

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations

  1. 1. Tracking Use of Campaign Evaluation Findings of Two International Organisations 12th EES Biennial Conference Maastricht 28 September 2016 Dr Glenn O’Neil oneil@owlre.com www.owlre.com
  2. 2. 2 – Evaluations were carried out of two global communication campaigns in 2009/10 – Four years later, I returned to look at how the evalution findings were being used Background Evaluator Campaign Evaluation unit
  3. 3. 3 – Qualitative approach to trace, categorise and validate instances of use – Interviews with campaign staff (6-ICRC, 5-OHCHR) – Each instance of use (28-use; 6-non-use) were coded on the basis of a conceptual framework Methodology Levels: Individual Interpersonal Collective # So. An. Instance description Type Description Att. Description Att. Description Att. How Inf. Ver. ICRC 1 I1, 2, 3 y Reduce complexity of messages and products In Recomm. reviewed, considered, thought about, priority given Sa, El Discussed with campaign team, confirmed existing consensus Ex, Pe Integrated into next campaign concept and implemented in messages/produc ts developed PC ALU F, P D; I1, 2, 3 Source Anticipated (yes/no) Type e.g. Instrumental Attributes, e.g. salience, elaboration Process category - e.g. Anticipated linear use Influences e.g. funding, people Verification, e.g. documentation
  4. 4. 4 1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated 2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected 3. Use never occurred in a vacuum devoid of influences 4. Strongest influences on use were internal Key findings
  5. 5. 5 The data Instances of use What: Type of use Where: Levels of use Why: Influences on use How: Process of use
  6. 6. 6 Instrumental 13 instances Process 5 instances Conceptual 9 instances Symbolic I instance Non-use 6 instances Field People Funding External context Evaluation policies and institutions Organisational context Communication Goals and ambitions Campaign manager (2) Campaign senior / researcher (2) Campaign staff (3) Campaign staff (after) (4) 24 16 7 9 1 2 4 9 6 6 8 19 5 11 1 12 22 2 11 1 8 InfluencesInstancesSources What: Type of use Why: Influences on use
  7. 7. 7 Where: Levels of use Individual Interpersonal Collective Informal change Formal change Four Years
  8. 8. 8 How: Process of use Unexpected hop Use was not anticipated and occurred in a linear way. Unforeseen foray Use was not anticipated and occurred in a non-linear way. Direct route Use was anticipated and occurred in a linear way. A planned ramble Use was anticipated and occurred in a non-linear way. Expedition starts/stops Use was anticipated, did not occur and happened in a non-linear way. Travel plans cancelled Use was anticipated, did not occur and happened in a linear way. Surprise trip deferred Use was not anticipated, did not occur and happened in a non-linear way. Unannounced stop-over skipped Use was not anticipated, did not occur and happened in a linear way.
  9. 9. 9 1. Use was mostly non-linear and unanticipated 2. Use was unpredictable, opportunistic and unexpected 3. Use never occurred in a vacuum devoid of influences 4. Strongest influences on use were internal Key findings – a reminder
  10. 10. 10 Contact details View these slides on my blog: oneil@owlre.com glennoneil www.owlre.com @glenn_oneil www.intelligentmeasurement.com Contacts:

×