Using a community-created multisite evaluation to promote evaluation use across a sector

Peterman, Karen; Gathings, M. J.

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.02.014

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are unaware of other work on this topic within the field of citizen science, but this claim has been substantiated within the context of other informal learning collaboration. For example, Peterman and Gathings (2019) found that the EvalFest collaborative evaluation model was effective at promoting the use of evaluation within science festivals. Similarly, a study of the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (called NISE Net) found that their collaborative teambased inquiry approach resulted in museum staff who valued and used evaluation more regularly (Bequette et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although evaluation use is one of the most researched areas in the evaluation literature, only in the last decade have researchers examined the extent of evaluation use in different contexts (e.g., Daigneault 2014;D'Ostie-Racine et al 2016;Peterman and Gathings 2019;Shaw and Campbell 2014). Our baseline research contributes to this small number, and as far as we know, is the first multi-project exploration of evaluation use in citizen science.…”

Section: Evaluation Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diverse and Important Ways Evaluation can Support and Advance Citizen Science

Davis

Bianco

Peterman³

et al. 2022

CSTP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation offers many benefits for citizen science including the ability to inform design and improve project programming; to aid in understanding impacts on volunteer outcomes; to validate project successes; and to advance best-practices in the field. However, evaluation and subsequent use of its findings in citizen science remains limited. Here, we applied an existing typology to document evaluation use among 15 citizen science project leaders who were deeply involved in a collaborative evaluation process. From their evaluation efforts, these leaders gained new and deeper understanding of their volunteers and programming (conceptual use); made critical changes to their projects (programmatic use); shared their evaluation findings with others (dissemination use); and expanded their attitudes and actions with regard to evaluation (process use). Knowledge gains from evaluation prompted the project leaders in our study to change their training, revise their protocols, add resources, and even terminate an unproductive project. Through reports, presentations, and publications, the project leaders shared findings related to skill proficiency with their volunteers, other staff members, practitioners in other citizen science projects, funders, researchers, and evaluators. Our study makes connections between the evaluation-use literature and citizen science practice, and offers recommendations to address the challenge of limited application of evaluation within citizen science. As such, this paper can help project leaders understand the important and diverse ways evaluation can support individual projects and the larger field. It also raises questions on the role of collaboration in citizen science evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluation Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse and Important Ways Evaluation can Support and Advance Citizen Science

Davis

Bianco

Peterman³

et al. 2022

CSTP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To streamline the validation process of our survey and allow comparisons between existing survey data, we used an existing protocol for science festivals (Peterman and Gathings 2019) as the basis for a pilot evaluation of 2022's Bug Bowl. Intercept surveys of adult attendees are the primary way of evaluating science festivals (Peterman and Verbeke 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We developed our intercept survey instrument with questions adapted from a large multisite informal science evaluation project (Peterman and Gathings 2019), as well as some questions unique to insect festivals and Bug Bowl. The visitor survey was administered as a paper questionnaire for adult visitors.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing visitor motivation and demographics between an insect festival and science festivals

Pearson,

Justus

2023

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both science festivals and insect festivals have increased in frequency in the last few decades. In order to compare insect festivals with science festivals, we modified a validated science festival visitor survey (EvalFest) for Purdue’s Bug Bowl, a long-running insect festival. Benchmarking against EvalFest and Collaboration for Ongoing Visitor Experience Studies (COVES) results, we found that Bug Bowl audiences were similar in having high levels of education, a high interest in science, and frequently visiting science venues. In fact, 23% of Bug Bowl survey takers indicated that they were actual scientists themselves. In contrast to EvalFest results, Bug Bowl had a higher rate of returning visitors than new visitors. Bug Bowl visitor motivations were primarily to have fun and bring their children for a learning experience, and they rated their experiences very positively. Ninety-one percent of Bug Bowl attendees surveyed lived in the state of Indiana. We discuss gaps in expected visitor demographics and possible applications for a shared common evaluation within a working group of insect festivals.

show abstract

“…While edgy science engagement programs have been shown to attract or appeal to young adult audiences (Bisbee O'Connell et al, 2020), it is challenging to demonstrate their impact without disrupting the experience. Research methods like surveys or interviews require extracting participants from the intellectually and emotionally saturated experiences the program designers are seeking to provide (see Michalchik & Gallagher, 2010; Peterman & Gathings, 2019). Participants at the Sensory Speed Dating event, for example, are definitely hoping to strike up a conversation after the event is over but not with the program evaluator.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%