IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v59y2016icp47-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of Outcome Harvesting in learning-oriented and collaborative inquiry approaches to evaluation: An example from Calgary, Alberta

Author

Listed:
  • Abboud, Rida
  • Claussen, Caroline

Abstract

The Community Development Learning Initiative (CDLI) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada aims to be a network that brings together neighbourhood residents, community development practitioners and other supporters to learn and act on neighbourhood-based, citizen-led community development projects. In 2013, the CDLI initiated The Evaluation for Learning and Dialogue Project to provide the opportunity for organizations and supporters to work together to establish a shared vision and goals through discussions about evaluation learning and outcomes. It was intended that the project would be a useful learning tool for participating organizations by enabling them to engage in an evaluative methodological process, and record relevant information and to compare and learn from each other’s projects. Outcome Harvesting was chosen as the evaluation methodology for the project. This article reviews critical learning from the project on the use of Outcome Harvesting methodology in the evaluation learning and outcomes of local community development projects, and it provides lessons for other jurisdictions interested in implementing this methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Abboud, Rida & Claussen, Caroline, 2016. "The use of Outcome Harvesting in learning-oriented and collaborative inquiry approaches to evaluation: An example from Calgary, Alberta," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 47-54.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:47-54
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915300379
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    2. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beardmore, Amy & Jones, Matthew & Seal, Joanne, 2023. "Outcome harvesting as a methodology for the retrospective evaluation of small-scale community development interventions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. So Young Lee & José M. Díaz-Puente & Pablo Vidueira, 2020. "Enhancing Rural Innovation and Sustainability Through Impact Assessment: A Review of Methods and Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    3. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    4. Sarah Chapman & Adiilah Boodhoo & Carren Duffy & Suki Goodman & Maria Michalopoulou, 2023. "Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 298-322, April.
    5. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    6. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    7. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Frans Sengers & Alexander Peine, 2021. "Innovation Pathways for Age-Friendly Homes in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-25, January.
    9. Jacqueline Adelowo & Mathias Mier & Christoph Weissbart, 2021. "Taxation of Carbon Emissions and Air Pollution in Intertemporal Optimization Frameworks with Social and Private Discount Rates," ifo Working Paper Series 360, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    10. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    11. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin & Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah & Ekboir, Javier & Mbabu, Adiel & Spielman, David & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Cohen, Marc J., 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide," FCND discussion papers 210, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Magen, Benjamin B., 2012. "An Ex Post Economic Impact Assessment of Bean/Cowpea Crsp’s Investment on Varietal Development in Senegal," Graduate Research Master's Degree Plan B Papers 142739, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    14. Schut, Marc & Colomer, Julien & Proud, Emma & Bonaiuti, Enrico & Dror, Iddo & Kang'ethe, Edwin & Esquivias, Lorena & Leeuwis, Cees, 2024. "Innovation portfolio management for responsible food systems transformation in the public sector: Lessons, results and recommendations from CGIAR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    15. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    16. Crissman, C.C. & Abernethy, K. & Delaporte, A. & Timmers, B., 2013. "A practical guide for ex-ante impact evaluation in fisheries and aquaculture," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40096, April.
    17. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. Douthwaite, Boru & Schulz, Steffen & Olanrewaju, Adetunji S. & Ellis-Jones, Jim, 2007. "Impact pathway evaluation of an integrated Striga hermonthica control project in Northern Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-3), pages 201-222, January.
    19. Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.
    20. Alessandro Magrini & Fabio Bartolini & Alessandra Coli & Barbara Pacini, 2019. "A structural equation model to assess the impact of agricultural research expenditure on multiple dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2063-2080, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:47-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.