New thematic content pages - what do you think?

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Simon Hearn's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/12/2011 - 10:40pm (US)
New thematic content pages - what do you think?

The BetterEvaluation team have been busy developing a new kind of content - thematic pages - which introduce evaluation of a particular sector or theme. We envisage these pages becoming portals in themselves, where people can come for tailored information on designing evaluations in mroe specific contexts, with specialist tools and options.

There are currently two such pages, the first is on evaluating climate change adaptation and mitigation results and the second is on evaluating capacity development results. In addition to this, we've also been working with a small group of beta-partners to develop a page on evaluating advocacy and policy influencing activities, which will be published in the next few weeks.

These pages do not yet fit into our site structure and are currently located in a box on the Find page. This makes them a little hard to find, but we are working on this.

We would love to hear your feedback on these pages as we develop them further and add more. Specifically:

  • What do you like about these pages?
  • How do you think they could be improved?
  • What would you look for in a thematic focussed section?
  • Do you have experiences with any of these sectors/themes that could add value to the content of these pages?
  • Do you have ideas for other themes/sectors BetterEvaluation could focus on?

Thank you!

Simon

Tags: 
Climate Change
Capacity Development
Content
Feedback
Themes
Nancy White's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2011 - 5:55am (US)
Sensemaking via Themes

I like this approach a lot, but also find it a fluid and challenging place to establish "working boundaries" in actual work. I hear a lot these days about climate neutral solutions, sustainability, etc, just like we heard a lot about gender in the past. I wonder if these are not also underlying VALUES?

FaridaFleming's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011 - 12:42am (US)
Feedback from the BetterEvaluation team

Here is some thinking from BetterEvaluation team members. It'll be interesting to see if people agree, disagree or have completely different thoughts from these:

'You'll see that the two existing pages are static in nature. They read like a paper, rather than an interactive page. Our intial ideas for improving these pages are:

  • keeping the editorial section that describes the particular considerations to take into account in the design of an evaluation in that theme, and highlighting thematic specific options and approaches. But making this section shorter.
  • pooling and displaying all content that is tagged with the theme
  • including highlight boxes (e.g. thumbnail of recent guide), RSS feeds, blog roll, events calendar, recent questions etc.'

Regards,
Farida

swraetz's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2011 - 12:55pm (US)
Evaluating climate change adaptation and mitigation results

RE: Content in CCAM page

A distinctive thing about market based CCAM projects is that results are used to verify emissions reductions, which are then sold as carbon credits.  So we collect and use info which is sold as evidence...this is a different than most M & E.  E.G.s of MB CCAM are Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES).

CCAM projects do MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification), which is the dominant approach for monitoring CCAM.   M & E and MRV are different but have overlapping objectives, assumptions and practices.  I think that a real use for this sort of forum is to create dialogue between those involved in these fields.  At Pact, we are a development organization who does ‘M & E’, but we are implementing REDD with technical partners which require us to do ‘MRV’.  So there are worlds colliding, and it would be of real use to have tools, dialogue etc. about these two approaches between practitioners and academics etc.

Topic locked