Purpose
The purpose of this co-produced research project was to conduct interviews with people working in, volunteering with and accessing Canadian recovery colleges (RCs) to explore their perspectives on what an evaluation strategy for RCs could look like.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used a participatory action research approach and involved semistructured interviews with 29 people involved with RCs across Canada.
Findings
In this paper, the authors share insights from participants about the purposes of RC evaluation; key elements of evaluation; and the most applicable and effective approaches to evaluation. Participants indicated that RC evaluations should use a personalized, humanistic and accessible approach. The findings suggest that evaluations can serve multiple purposes and have the potential to support both organizational and personal-recovery goals if they are developed with meaningful input from people who access and work in RCs.
Practical implications
The findings can be used to guide evaluations in which aspects that are most important to those involved in RCs could inform choices, decisions, priorities, developments and adaptations in RC evaluation processes and, ultimately, in programming.
Originality/value
A recent scoping review revealed that although coproduction is a central feature of the RC model, coproduction principles are rarely acknowledged in descriptions of how RC evaluation strategies are developed. Exploring coproduction processes in all aspects of the RC model, including evaluation, can further the mission of RCs, which is to create spaces where people can come together and engage in mutual capacity-building and collaboration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.