- About Us
- Statewide Resources
- Get Involved
- Find Us
Evaluation is an Everyday Activity
Program Evaluation Discussions
Updated: 3 hours 42 min ago
Ever wonder where the 0.05 probability level number was derived? Ever wonder if that is the best number? How many of you were taught in your introduction to statistics course that 0.05 is the probability level necessary for rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference? This confidence may be spurious. As Paul Bakker indicates in the AEA 365 blog post for March 28, “Before you analyze your data, discuss with your clients and the relevant decision makers the level of confidence they need to make a decision.” Do they really need to be 95% confident? Or would 90% confidence be sufficient? What about 75% or even 55%?
Think about it for a minute? If you were a brain surgeon, you wouldn’t want anything less than 99.99% confidence; if you were looking at level of risk for a stock market investment, 55% would probably make you a lot of money. The academic community has held to and used the probability level of 0.05 for years (the computation of the p value dating back to 1770). (Quoting Wikipedia, ” In the 1770s Laplace considered the statistics of almost half a million births. The statistics showed an excess of boys compared to girls. He concluded by calculation of a p-value that the excess was a real, but unexplained, effect.”) Fisher first proposed the 0.05 level in 1025 and established a one in 20 limit for statistical significance when considering a two tailed test. Sometimes the academic community makes the probability level even more restrictive by using 0.01 or 0.001 to demonstrate that the findings are significant. Scientific journals expect 95% confidence or a probability level of at least 0.05.
Although I have held to these levels, especially when I publish a manuscript, I have often wondered if this level makes sense. If I am only curious about a difference, do I need 0.05? Oor could I use 0.10 or 0.15 or even 0.20? I have often asked students if they are conducting confirmatory or exploratory research? I think confirmatory research expects a more stringent probability level. I think exploratory research requires a less stringent probability level. The 0.05 seems so arbitrary.
Then there is the grounded theory approach which doesn’t use a probability level. It generates theory from categories which are generated from concepts which are identified from data, usually qualitative in nature. It uses language like fit, relevance, workability, and modifiability. It does not report statistically significant probabilities as it doesn’t use inferential statistics. Instead, it uses a series of probability statements about the relationships between concepts.
So what do we do? What do you do? Let me know.
Recently, I came across a blog post by Daniel Green, who is the head of strategic media partnerships at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He coauthored this post with Mayur Patel, vice president of strategy and assessment at the Knight Foundation. I mention this because those two foundations have contributed $3.25 million in seed funding “…to advance a better understanding of audience engagement and media impact…”. They are undertaking an ambitious project to develop a rubric (of sorts) to determine “…how media influences the ways people think and act, and contributes to broader societal changes…”. Although it doesn’t specifically say, I include social media in the broad use of “media”. The blog post talks about broader agenda–that of informed and engaged communities. These foundations believe that an informed and engaged communities will strengthen “… democracy and civil society to helping address some of the world’s most challenging social problems.”
Or in other words, what difference is being made, which is something I wonder about all the time. (I’m an evaluator, after all, and I want to know what difference is made.)
Although there are strong media forces out there (NYTimes, NPR, BBC, the Guardian, among others), I wonder about the strength and effect of social media (FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, among others). Anecdotally, I can tell you that social media is everywhere and IS changing the way people think and act. I watch my now 17 y/o who uses the IM feature on her social media to communicate with her friends, set up study dates, find out homework assignments, not the phone like I did. I watch my now 20 y/o multitask–talk to me on Skype and read and respond to her FB entry. She uses IM as much as her sister. I know that social media was instrumental in the Arab spring. I know that major institutions have social media connections (FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.). Social media is everywhere. And we have no good way to determine if it is making a difference and what that difference is.
For something so ubiquitous (social media), why is there no way to evaluate social media other than through the use of analytics? I’ve been asking that question since I first posted my query “Is this blog making a difference?” back in March 2012. Since I’ve been posting since December 2009, that gave me over 2 years from which to gather data. That is a luxury when it comes to programming, especially when many programs often are a few hours in duration and an evaluation is expected.
I hope that this project provides useful information for those of us who have come kicking and screaming to social media and have seen the light. Even though they are talking about the world of media, I’m hoping that they can come up with measures that address the social aspect of media. The technology provided IS useful; the question is what difference is it making?
We are four months into 2013 and I keep asking the question “Is this blog making a difference?” I’ve asked for an analytic report to give me some answers. I’ve asked you readers for your stories.
Let’s hear it for SEOs and how they pick up that title–I credit that with the number of comments I’ve gotten. I AM surprised at the number of comments I have gotten since January (hundreds, literally). Most say things like, “of course it is making a difference.” Some compliment me on my writing style. Some are in a foreign language which I cannot read (I am illiterate when it comes to Cyrillic, Arabic, Greek, Chinese, and other non-English alphabets). Some are marketing–wanting ping backs to their recently started blogs for some product. Some have commented specifically on the content (sample size and confidence intervals); some have commented on the time of year (vernal equinox). Occasionally, I get a comment like the comment below and I keep writing.
The questions of all questions… Do I make a difference? I like how you write and let me answer your question. Personally I was supposed to be dead ages ago because someone tried to kill me for the h… of it … Since then (I barely survived) I have asked myself the same question several times and every single time I answer with YES. Why? Because I noticed that whatever you do, there is always someone using what you say or do to improve their own life. So, I can answer the question for you: Do you make a difference? Yes, you do, because there will always be someone who uses your writings to do something positive with it. So, I hope I just made your day! And needless to say, keep the blog posts coming!
Enough update. New topic: I just got a copy of the third edition of Miles and Huberman (my to go reference for qualitative data analysis). Wait you say–Miles and Huberman are dead–yes, they are. Johnny Saldana (there needs to be a~ above the “n” in his name only I don’t know how to do that with this keyboard) was approached by Sage to be the third author and revise and update the book. A good thing, I think. Miles and Huberman’s second edition was published in 1994. That is almost 20 years. I’m eager to see if it will hold as a classic given that there are many other books on qualitative coding in press currently. (The spring research flyer from Gilford lists several on qualitative inquiry and analysis from some established authors.)
I also recently sat in on a research presentation of a candidate for a tenure track position here at OSU who talked about how the analysis of qualitative data was accomplished. Took me back to when I was learning–index cards and sticky notes. Yes, there are marvelous software programs out there (NVivo, Ethnograph, N*udist); I will support the argument that the best way to learn about your qualitative data is to immerse yourself in it with color coded index cards and sticky notes. Then you can use the software to check your results. Keep in mind, though, that you are the PI and you will bring many biases to the analysis of your data.
Harold Jarche says in his April 21 post, “What I’ve learned about blogging is that you have to do it for yourself. Most of my posts are just thoughts that I want to capture.” What an interesting way to look at blogging. Yes, there is content; yes, there is substance. What there is most are captured thoughts. Thoughts committed to “paper” before they fly away. How many times have you said to yourself–if only…because you don’t remember what you were thinking; where you were going. It may be a function of age; it may be a function of the times; it may be a function of other things as well (too little sleep, too much information, lack of f0cus).
When I blog on evaluation, I want to provide content that is meaningful. I want to provide substance (as I understand it) in the field of evaluation. Most of all, I want to capture what I’m thinking at the moment (like now). Last week was a good example of capturing thoughts. I wasn’t making up the rubric content; it is real. All evaluation needs to have criteria against which the “program” is judged for merit and worth. How else can you determine the value of something? So I ask you: What criteria do you use in the moment you decide? (and a true evaluator will say, “It depends…”)
A wise man (Elie Wiesel) said, “A man’s (sic) life, really, is not made up of years but of moments, all of which are fertile and unique.” Even though he has not laid out explicitly his rubric, it is clear what makes them have merit and worth– “moments which are fertile and unique”. An interesting way to look at life, eh?
Jarche gives us a 10 year update about his experience blogging. He is asking a question I’ve been asking: He asks what has changed and what has he learned in the past 10 years. He talks about metrics (spammers and published posts). I can do that. He doesn’t talk about analytics (although I’m sure he could) and I don’t want to talk about analytics, either. Some comments on my blog suggest that I look at length of time spent on a page…that seems like a reasonable metric. What I really want to hear is what has changed (Jarche talks about what has changes as being perpetual beta). Besides the constantly changing frontier of social media, I go back to the comment by Elie Wiesel–moments that are fertile and unique. How many can you say you’ve had today? One will make my day–one will get my gratitude. Today I am grateful for being able to blog.