aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting), Alicia McCoy (First Person Consulting, AU), Tenille Moselen (First Person Consulting, AU)

In the dynamic realm of evaluation methodology, the discourse surrounding the use of validated tools versus the customization of evaluation metrics remains a contentious issue. This session aims to delve into the inherent risks associated with both approaches. This is often compounded when those in positions of power have preferences for the use of validated tools over for-context data collection questions or approaches. The tension this elicits is only increasing in a time when evaluating digital interventions where there is no direct tool to draw upon, leaving evaluators to navigate uncharted territory.

Moreover, there are an ever-increasing range of validated tools available, but little direction for evaluators - particularly emerging and early career evaluators to assist in deciding. This session presents on experiences from a range of digital and in-person projects, and we explore scenarios where there was no 'obvious solution'. This session will be of particular relevance to those undertaking evaluations of digital and novel programs.

Through candid dialogue and shared anecdotes, participants will reflect on their experiences in navigating decisions to adopt, adapt, or reject validated tools, and the learning that resulted. Embracing controversy, this session encourages attendees to challenge conventional wisdom and critically examine the balance between the reliability of validated tools, the importance of fitting data collection to context, and most importantly what 'good' looks like.

Join the conversation as we navigate the complex landscape of evaluation methodology, exploring the tensions between established practices and the pursuit of innovation in evaluation processes.

Authors: Kirstin Clements (Arts Centre Melbourne)

How does a creative institution develop an effective evaluation framework that honours the artistic process while meeting rigorous research standards?

At Arts Centre Melbourne we asked ourselves, 'what if?'... What if we integrated the economic story into a fit-for-purpose value proposition? What if we see the emotive, subjective nature of the arts as an asset, rather than a challenge in our evaluation design? What if we tried to embed systems thinking and extend our approach beyond individual projects?

Like many purpose-driven industries, the arts face an increasingly competitive funding landscape and heightened expectations from stakeholders for evidence-based reporting on the value generated by initiatives. Historically, in the arts such reporting has been responsive to external demands and formats. One of our core goals has been to equip the organisation with the capability and capacity to pro-actively drive its own public value narrative through a transparent, consistent approach.

In this presentation, we spotlight Arts Centre Melbourne's innovative approach to building appetite for evaluation and to designing a fit-for-purpose organisational impact model and evaluation function. We offer insights into the conceptual and methodological approaches we've adopted to achieve our objectives: supporting effective advocacy for the public value of the arts, enhancing accountability to stakeholders, and fostering a culture of continuous learning.

In sharing how we have creatively navigated challenges and opportunities at Arts Centre Melbourne, we aim to provide valuable advice and inspiration for evaluators and supporting professionals, particularly those working in sectors where evaluation is yet to be understood as 'business-as-usual' activity.

Authors: Lyndal Sleep (Central Queensland University)

AI and other forms of digital technologies are being increasingly used in programs and services delivery. They promise increased efficiency, accuracy and objectivity, however these technologies can also cause significant harm and trauma, as seen in Robodebt. It is vital for evaluators to be aware of key questions to ask to prevent AI having unintended impact on program processes, outputs and outcomes, or cause harm to service users.

Objective
This session aims to support evaluation of AI assisted programs and services by introducing evaluators to a new and innovative trauma informed AI assessment tool.

Core argument
(1) AI is increasingly being used in programs and services, and understanding the resulting risks is essential for evaluators to assess whether services are meeting intended outcomes.
(2) many evaluators are unaware of what types of risks to look for when assessing AI assisted services, or what questions to ask - especially when conducting trauma informed evaluations.
(3) a practical trauma informed AI assessment tool has been developed by researchers from [Universities omitted], with funding from [omitted] to address this need, and will be briefly introduced.

A short paper session will:
(1) Highlight the problem that AI is increasingly being used to assist program and services delivery, but many evaluators are unaware of the main risks to consider when evaluating these services.
(2) Suggest the solution of a practical tool which considers these risks, with technological knowledge and within a trauma informed framework, that can be employed by evaluators.
(3) Introduce a trauma informed AI assessment tool, the method used to develop it, as well as its intended practical use by evaluators (both internal and external to organisations).

There will be 10 minutes for questions and discussion at the end of the presentation.