Hi everyone - I thought I'd bring over this interesting post from the MCG listserv.
Thoughts? Sheila Carey (Chair, Metrics & Evaluation SIG) Analyste des publics et des programmes | Audience and Program Analyst R?seau canadien d'information sur le patrimoine (RCIP) | The Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) Minist?re du Patrimoine canadien | Department of Canadian Heritage Gatineau, Canada K1A 0M5 sheila.carey at pch.gc.ca T?l?phone | Telephone 819-934-5017 T?l?copieur | Facsimile 819-994-9555 T?l?imprimeur (sans frais) 1-888-997-3123 | Teletypewriter (toll-free) 1-888-997-3123 Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada -------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:51:14 +0100 From: Mia <[email protected]> Subject: 'Why evaluation doesn't measure up' There's an interesting post called 'Why evaluation doesn't measure up' on the Museums Association site http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/comment/01062012-why-evaluation-doesnt-measure-up or http://bit.ly/L9FlQz where they say: "No one seems to have done the sums, but UK museums probably spend millions on evaluation each year. Given that, it?s disappointing how little impact evaluation appears to have, even within the institution that commissioned it." and: "Summative evaluations are expected to achieve the impossible: to help museums learn from failure, while proving the project met all its objectives. Is it time to rethink how the sector approaches evaluation?" I'm curious to know what others think. Are they right? Or are they missing something? Cheers, Mia -------------------------------------------- http://openobjects.org.uk/ http://twitter.com/mia_out
