Evaluation of the Southern and Eastern Africa Regional Centre for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18and also any strategic planning documents that set out the programme vision, werereviewed and where possible, any theory of change identified.2) Survey- this largely quantitative method is the bedrock for the study because itinforms almost all aspects of the intervention, especially the impact questions. Keycharacteristics of the graduate cohort and key themes from findings capture thebeneficiaries’ views and also their contribution to broader processes. As proposed bythe ToR the survey provides background information on the candidates, the type oforganisation/institution they worked for before attending the women’s lawdiploma/master, information about the careers of the former students, their use ofthe theoretical knowledge in their current work, their consideration of the mostuseful aspects of their course in women’s law, the impact of the training as assessedby themselves, examples given of how they have used their knowledge, their ownoutputs (publications, papers, newspaper, radio, TV, etc), their level of contact withother former students, and their opinions about how the effect of the training bestcould be improved. In addition to these questions, we have asked about concreteachievements and contributions made to women’s law in particular and what kinds ofnetworks they are in.Some questions in the survey have gone to their current employers. Employers wereasked to assess the usefulness of the training in the work of former participants ofthe programme as well as the usefulness of the training on policy formulation. In thetwo countries where field work was conducted, we followed up on these issues ininterviews where it was deemed relevant and necessary in order to get more feedbackto assess the impact. Some of the questions in the survey were open-ended, such asgiving examples of how the candidates have used the knowledge gained and theiropinions about how training could be improved.The survey questions were formulated by Jones and Hellevik based on the questionsoutlined in the TOR and in the NIBR tender. Hellevik made the technical input intothe survey instrument used, namely, the Easyquest programme. The Easyquestprogramme is a web-based electronic survey instrument which is user friendly, cheapand makes the client the proprietor of the raw data. Tronstad and Aasen acted as testusers and gave feed back to the test questionnaire and the questions and their orderin the questionnaire was further refined before it was sent out. Hellevik organised thefinal layout and technical issues regarding the questionnaire and it was distributed to181 respondents on November 12, 2012. Two reminders were distributed torespondents before the survey was closed on December 13. The analysis of the datawas also done by use of Easyquest, supplemented by use of Excel.Previously the poor response rates in the MTR handicapped the validity ofquestionnaire sent out. The NIBR evaluation team were therefore aware that somedecrease in response would be anticipated, which in some cases may be due tomigration and HIV/AIDS. The major challenge the team anticipated was to get as upto date as possible contact information for respondents. We therefore started thework by sending out an early tracer e-mail to all former students for whom we had e-mail addresses, requesting people to reply “Yes” for having received the e-mail. Thistracer e-mail also allowed us to see which e-mail addresses were out of use. Based onthe results of this tracer e-mail, we followed up with the information manager of theCentre and the local consultant in Harare to find alternative e-mail addresses for
those which were not in use. The evaluation team managed to get new e-mailaddresses for most people. Of the list of a total of 202 students, 181 was the finalnumber of students for whom we had e-mail addresses (but with many not replyingto the tracer email). The response rate of the survey was 90 people: 87 formerstudents and 3 employers. In total there was therefore a response rate of 48,15percent. Such a level of response can therefore be considered representative of thegraduate cohort, especially given the good spread in relation to nationality, genderand educational background (i.e. lawyer or non-lawyer).3) Qualitative methods- For impact and sustainability we also used qualitative methods.Interviews and focus group discussions were qualitative methods used whichprovided important feedback on the validity of the survey and vice versa. Informantswere selected intentionally due to particular characteristics especially to do with typeof work. In particular, findings supplemented those from the survey on personal andindividual impact, as well as the institutional level. The total number of interviewsconducted was 51, of these:The total number of graduates individually interviewed was: 20 (9 Zambia, 9Zimbabwe, 2 Kenya, plus one other not counted as a graduate but who wished to dothe course).The total number of employers interviewed was: 8 (4 Zambia, 4 Zimbabwe- and oneof whom is double-counted because they were also a graduate).Others, such as partners or key informants: 23 (4 Zambia, 14 Zimbabwe- including 2University of Zimbabwe, 2 at RNE, and 5 at SEARCWL itself). This total figure alsoincludes 3 Regional Board members (who were interviewed explicitly in that capacity)and 2 partners at the University of Oslo.Topics depended on whether respondents were graduates, employers, or keyinformants, regional board members and so on. Interview schedules took this intoconsideration.In addition 2 groups interviews were conducted: one in Zimbabwe (5 graduates, oneof whom were interviewed separately) and the other in Zambia (4 of whom all wereinterviewed). In other words the group interviews added another 4 graduates to themake an overall total of 24 graduates spoken with. In all cases, as mentioned,respondents were intentionally approached for interview based on aspects such astheir work.4) Academic sustainability - first, we checked curriculum and research outputs, includingteaching and academic related publications. The ‘empirical knowledge’ basis of theCentre was checked concerning the quality of research outputs and curriculadevelopment. This was done in conjunction with speaking with members of theregional colloquia responsible for course development and revision and regional‘peers’. This component inevitably overlaps with the scope and nature of networksand partnerships in meeting broader change objectives. In addition, we conductedinterviews with key actors at the Centre, and also selected regional board members;RNE, Norad staff consulted; and also other partners, such as the University of Oslo;and significant institutional collaborators (see below).19
Page 1: Norad Report 5/2013 DiscussionEvalu
Page 6 and 7: 4AcknowledgementsThe Norwegian Inst
Page 8 and 9: 6Executive SummaryBackgroundThe pur
Page 10 and 11: 8Kenya and Zimbabwe. Another area o
Page 12 and 13: 10with and in a manner more pro-act
Page 14 and 15: 121 Introduction1.1 Background and
Page 16 and 17: 14−−−at the Centre and cooper
Page 18 and 19: 16evaluation is how the 2010 MTR id
Page 22 and 23: 20An important factor for impact al
Page 24 and 25: 223 Findings: Impact of the SEARCWL
Page 26 and 27: 24percent in 2008, 18 percent in 20
Page 28 and 29: 263.3 Women’s law as a discipline
Page 30 and 31: 283.4.2 Career impactOne of the mos
Page 32 and 33: 30A critical space for influencing
Page 34 and 35: 32A male senior law officer in the
Page 36 and 37: 34“massive knowledge. It has real
Page 38 and 39: 36group to do lectures, training, a
Page 40 and 41: 383.6.1 Sufficiently harnessed?Desp
Page 42 and 43: 40like with the lack of discussion
Page 44 and 45: 42to RNE for 2012 the centre ‘now
Page 46 and 47: 44• Regional Masters programmes 6
Page 48 and 49: 46of the Women’s Law Series entit
Page 50 and 51: 48development of new methods and ev
Page 52 and 53: 50There is clearly a major threat i
Page 54 and 55: 52to reconsider those less popular)
Page 56 and 57: 542008 Centre- end of phase report2
Page 58 and 59: 56SEARCWLProf. StewartProf. A. Tsan
Page 60 and 61: 58Annex 2:SWOT analysisName Positio
Page 62 and 63: 60Annex 3:Zambia Field WorkOne of t
Page 64 and 65: 62Annex 4:Survey Responses1. Are yo
Page 66 and 67: 645. Age of respondents50%45%40%35%
Page 68 and 69: 6670%67%60%50%40%30%32%20%10%0%1% 0
Page 70 and 71:
6818. Assess the quality of various
Page 72 and 73:
70543211%1%5%29%64%0% 10% 20% 30% 4
Page 74 and 75:
7224. Which components of the cours
Page 76 and 77:
74Thank you for answering this ques
Page 78 and 79:
76can share with you as they were a
Page 80 and 81:
78office as a Consultant namely (a)
Page 82 and 83:
80objective of the program was to e
Page 84 and 85:
82Results of Assessments of Women
Page 86:
NoradNorwegian Agency for Developme
show all

Evaluation of the Southern and Eastern Africa Regional Centre for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?