I recently spoke at the Graduate Institute in Geneva for the students of the Certificate in Advocacy in International Affairs – presenting a case study on Oxfam’s GROW campaign - drawing insights on global advocacy campaigns. My presentation is below:
Here is an interesting course from INTRAC on advocacy influence – online blended learning that can be taken from anywhere in the world:
“Is developing and implementing an advocacy strategy critical to success in your project or programme? Do your staff and partners need support to achieve your advocacy objectives? In this capacity building programme, you will have the opportunity to develop and troubleshoot the implementation of an advocacy strategy as well as build your knowledge and confidence.
This programme will give you the knowledge and skills to influence policy and practice in your own context. You will learn skills to help you plan and deliver an effective advocacy strategy; enhance your ability to lobby decision makers; and gain confidence in the ways in which you relate to different audiences. You will also have the skills to analyse power dynamics and choose your advocacy activities so they have maximum impact.”
For readers interested in campaign evaluation, Oxfam has just published a mid-point external evaluation report (pdf) of their GROW campaign – of which I was part of the evaluation team.
Often organisations will not make available publically their campaign evaluations – but Oxfam has a progressive policy on this so I’m happy to be able to share the report will all interested…
The GROW campaign set out in 2011 to tackle food justice and build a better food system. Challenging to evaluate, the GROW campaign is broad and diverse, operating at national, regional and international levels, across 4 thematic areas – land, investment in small-scale agriculture, climate change and food price volatility.
In our evaluation report we look at the initial Theory of Change and endeavour to track the changes seen over the first two years and the possible intervening factors, positive and negative, using a variety of methods including five case studies (found at the end of the report).
As the campaign had a broad set of activities at a range of levels, the challenge for the evaluation team was to capture all significant changes seen to date and draw out learnings for the future.
Oxfam has also produced a summary infographic that you can view below.
Here is an interesting two day training course on advocacy evaluation taking place in London in May, September & November 2014:
“Over two days this new course takes participants on a journey through the advocacy evaluation landscape. The course begins by highlighting the unique challenges faced in advocacy evaluation, supporting participants to understand which approaches, methods and tools will work best for their contexts and in assessing the impact of their work. Participants will be given a useful monitoring and evaluation framework to help design their evaluation plans, and through group work, have the opportunity to experiment with a range of unique advocacy data collection tools”
Registration is now open for the workshop on Evaluating Complex Interventions in Complex Environments – June 5 to 6, 2014.
The workshop will be run by Professor Patricia Rogers and will take place in Berne at the Federal Office of Personnel, Eigerstrasse 71.
Fees for the 2-day workshop are CHF650.00 for SEVAL members and CHF700.00 for non members, exclusive of travel and meals. Registration is now open online at:
I’ve written previously about the Likert scale and using it in surveys. On one point, I discussed whether the response options should be displayed positive to negative or negative to positive – the image below is negative (‘strongly disagree’) to positive (‘strongly agree’).
I’ve recently come across two articles (listed below) where they have researched this issue – and they have found that the place of the response option does matter. In summary, they found that the items placed on the left hand side gets more people selecting them than those on the right. They also found that when using vertical lists, the first items are more selected than others further down the list.
So what is the solution? One option I see is that many survey software offer the possibility when creating questions for the response options to be “flipped” – that is, some people will see them negative to positive and others will see them positive to negative. It also makes sense to vary the response order in long surveys, particularly when using same or similar scales – to avoid respondents suffering from “survey fatigue”.