nor is it formative, in that it is nor primarily about setting baseline data for a future
summative evaluation.
23
These high complexity situations have characteristics such as dynamic, emergent, non-linear and uncertain
24 – a list which also fundamentally characterises
climate change, its impacts on communities, and what is needed to support adaptation. Developmental evaluation has applicability where there is uncertainty, and
where the program might need to change and adapt according to emerging and
changing contexts. This is particularly applicable in the case of climate change
adaptation, and in the case of the CC-CBA project, significant path changes were
required in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in December 2013.
A key characteristic of developmental evaluation is that it supports continuous
learning and innovation through embedding evaluators as part of the team engaged
in project delivery, in a long-term partnering relationship.
25 The CC-CBA design
integrated the research component within the project and indeed it was the role of
researchers to facilitate evidence-based, systematic reflection on project progress.
Strong individual and organisational partnerships were successfully built.
26 The
practical realities of program budgets meant that evaluative researchers could not
be embedded full-time within the project implemented, but were directly involved
in research design and inception and through the course of the evaluative process
interacted with project implementers periodically throughout the 3-year project.
16.4 The Method: Details and Reflections
The evaluative method described in this section was developed through a collaborative effort between researchers and project implementers,
27 and field-tested in a
participatory fashion through several iterations with child, youth and adult participants. The method focuses on collecting and analysing evidence against a set of
indicators. These indicators were initially drafted by the team based on the theory of
change and the experience of project implementers. The indicator set was revised
23 Patton, Michael Quinn. 2011. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to
Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
24 Ibid.
25 Dozois, Elizabeth, Marc Langlois and Blacnhet-Cohen. 2010. A Practitioner’s Guide to Developmental Evaluation: The J.W. McConnell Famliy Foundation and the International Institute for
Child Rights and Development, Patton, Michael Quinn. 2011. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
26 Treichel, Pia, Joanne Chong and Anna Gero. 2014. A Partnership for Learning, Reflection and
Evaluation in Action: Exploring Opportunities for Understanding Program Impact: ACFID
University Network.
27 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Reslience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
297
summative evaluation.
23
These high complexity situations have characteristics such as dynamic, emergent, non-linear and uncertain
24 – a list which also fundamentally characterises
climate change, its impacts on communities, and what is needed to support adaptation. Developmental evaluation has applicability where there is uncertainty, and
where the program might need to change and adapt according to emerging and
changing contexts. This is particularly applicable in the case of climate change
adaptation, and in the case of the CC-CBA project, significant path changes were
required in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in December 2013.
A key characteristic of developmental evaluation is that it supports continuous
learning and innovation through embedding evaluators as part of the team engaged
in project delivery, in a long-term partnering relationship.
25 The CC-CBA design
integrated the research component within the project and indeed it was the role of
researchers to facilitate evidence-based, systematic reflection on project progress.
Strong individual and organisational partnerships were successfully built.
26 The
practical realities of program budgets meant that evaluative researchers could not
be embedded full-time within the project implemented, but were directly involved
in research design and inception and through the course of the evaluative process
interacted with project implementers periodically throughout the 3-year project.
16.4 The Method: Details and Reflections
The evaluative method described in this section was developed through a collaborative effort between researchers and project implementers,
27 and field-tested in a
participatory fashion through several iterations with child, youth and adult participants. The method focuses on collecting and analysing evidence against a set of
indicators. These indicators were initially drafted by the team based on the theory of
change and the experience of project implementers. The indicator set was revised
23 Patton, Michael Quinn. 2011. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to
Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
24 Ibid.
25 Dozois, Elizabeth, Marc Langlois and Blacnhet-Cohen. 2010. A Practitioner’s Guide to Developmental Evaluation: The J.W. McConnell Famliy Foundation and the International Institute for
Child Rights and Development, Patton, Michael Quinn. 2011. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
26 Treichel, Pia, Joanne Chong and Anna Gero. 2014. A Partnership for Learning, Reflection and
Evaluation in Action: Exploring Opportunities for Understanding Program Impact: ACFID
University Network.
27 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Reslience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
297