How Do Evaluators Differentiate Successful From Less-Than-Successful Experiences With Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation?

OBJECTIVES: In this exploratory study, we wanted to know how evaluators differentiate collaborative approaches to evaluation (CAE) perceived to be successful from those perceived to be less-than-successful. METHOD: In an online questionnaire survey, we obtained 320 responses from evaluators who practice CAE (i.e., evaluations on which program stakeholders coproduce evaluation knowledge). Respondents identified two specific CAE projects from their own experience-one they believed to be "highly successful" and another they considered "far less successful than [they] had hoped."-and offered their comments and reflections about them. They rated the respective evaluations on 5-point opinion and frequency scales about (i) antecedent stakeholder perspectives, (ii) the purposes and justifications for collaborative inquiry, and (iii) the form such inquiry takes. FINDINGS: The results showed that successful evaluations, relative to their less-than-successful counterparts, tended to reflect higher levels of agreement among stakeholders about the focal program; higher intentionality estimates of evaluation justification and espoused purposes; and wider ranges and deeper levels of stakeholder participation. No differences were found for control of technical decision-making, and evaluators tended to lead evaluation decision making, regardless of success condition. DISCUSSION: The results are discussed in terms of implications for ongoing research on CAE.

Learning together for effective collaboration in school-based occupational therapy practice.

BACKGROUND: School-based occupational therapy (SBOT) practice takes place within a complex system that includes service recipients, service providers, and program decision makers across health and education sectors. Despite the promotion of collaborative consultation at a policy level, there is little practical guidance about how to coordinate multi-agency service and interprofessional collaboration among these stakeholders. PURPOSE: This paper reports on a process used to engage program administrators in an examination of SBOT collaborative consultation practice in one region of Ontario to provide an evidence-informed foundation for decision making about implementation of these services. METHODS: Within an appreciative inquiry framework (Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008), Developmental Work Research methods (Engeström, 2000) were used to facilitate shared learning for improved SBOT collaborative consultation. Program administrators participated alongside program providers and service recipients in a series of facilitated workshops to develop principles that will guide future planning and decision making about the delivery of SBOT services. FINDINGS: Facilitated discussion among stakeholders led to the articulation of 12 principles for effective collaborative practice. Program administrators used their shared understanding to propose a new model for delivering SBOT services. IMPLICATIONS: Horizontal and vertical learning across agency and professional boundaries led to the development of powerful solutions for program improvement.