Editorial
| DOI | 10.1177/1035719X0200200201 |
| Author | Doug Fraser,Colin Sharp |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
very diverse material, inspired people to rewrite
their session papers, even created spontaneous
demands for unscheduled sessions where the floor
On conferences
could challenge the keynote presenters to tease out
the points they had raised.
It seems very little time – four, maybe five years
And context matters too – the context of the
– since AES conferences typically had
programs we evaluate, the context in which we
meaningful themes like Evaluation: A Very
work as evaluators, the people for (or to) whom the
Good Thing, and papers mostly ran along the
things we evaluate are done. All of a sudden, a
lines of: This is a presentation about an
consensus seems to have developed that evaluation
evaluation we did of Program x. Program x
is not inevitably and by some essential virtue a
had no precedents, antecedents or context; or if
Good Thing – that we need to justify our existence
it did, we pretended not to notice. We pulled a
and ask ourselves serious questions about who
sample. We did a survey. Here are 13 slides of
benefits from our work, and how. As Richard Elvins
significance testing. As for what became of the
pointed out in his final remarks (see p. 35),
findings, we neither know nor care.
methodology was pushed right into the background
And this didn’t really matter all that much,
this year by these bigger questions of context,
because the real reason we went to conferences
purpose, impact and fit that characterise the second
was to network. The networking was what
learning loop – not just whether, as a profession, we
really did us good as individual practitioners,
are doing the thing right, but whether we are doing
gave us a sense of belonging to a profession,
the right thing. What answers we arrive at, matters
and probably did the profession a lot of good
less than the fact that we are asking the questions.
too. The papers, at least the session papers,
Just why we should be collectively ready to ask
were people’s admission tickets, the price of
ourselves these questions right now, is something of
getting funding or time off work to attend, or
a puzzle to me. Certainly this year’s invited speakers
perhaps the means of publicly justifying your
were challenging, engaging and eager for dialogue
existence over the last year or three. You went
with their audience; but there have been plenty of
to your friends’ sessions to spare them the
others in the past (I think particularly of
possible desolation of presenting to an empty
Christopher Pollitt five years ago) who might just as
room; you earnestly hoped the plenaries would
reasonably have provoked the same kind of
be interesting enough to keep you from dozing
engagement with the issues.
off between 9 and 10.30 on the morning after
Is it a case, as Saville Kushner suggested, that
a heavy night; just occasionally, you went to a
what goes around, comes around? It was sobering
...
To continue reading
Request your trial