Search

Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual, processual, and reflexive. The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.

Philanthropic foundations routinely evaluate and measure the performance of nonprofit organisations to which they distribute funds, as well as the programmes that are funded. Another aspect of philanthropic foundations’ evaluation processes, which receives comparatively little attention within academic or practitioner literature, concerns evaluations of grant applications. While the focus of philanthropic evaluation literature is mainly on ‘how evaluation is done’, the focus of this article is on ‘how evaluation is understood’. This article details perspectives from interviews with 28 managers and trustees of Public Ancillary Funds as part of a wider study on the accountability of foundations. These public foundations must fundraise from the public, and donations to them are deductible against the taxable income of the donor, resulting in a significant element of accountability to the public for their effectiveness and evaluation of the distribution of their funds. Four main themes emerged through the exploration of how evaluation is understood from the perspective of these senior foundation leaders: motivations, values, criteria and processes of evaluation.

This article charts the innovative evaluation journey an Australian nonprofit organisation, The Pyjama Foundation (PJF), has taken when designing an evaluation instrument to gain feedback from programme beneficiaries. PJF sought to develop a formal, targeted approach to hear the perspectives of children living in out-of-home care, who are involved with their Love of Learning educational programme. The design process included two focus group discussions with foster carers, programme volunteers, and child development experts. From this, an evaluation survey for children to use was developed. The survey’s underpinning conceptual framework, based on key protective factors influencing educational outcomes for children in out-of-home care, is a key contribution of this research. In addition, the design and implementation issues PJF encountered contribute insights for other nonprofit organisations and evaluators and academic knowledge towards evaluations involving children and vulnerable stakeholders. Hearing children’s views on programmes they are involved in is vital in helping to develop safe spaces for children to engage, where their thoughts are valued and opinions matter. As such, the processes detailed within this article support the development of evaluation practices that value children’s voices.

The research presented within this paper case studies two nonprofit organisations in order to gain the perspectives of beneficiaries, staff, and board members on the participation of beneficiaries in evaluating the organisation. The aim of the research is to reconsider more traditional beneficiary participative evaluation approaches through the critical lens of dialogic accounting theory. The research draws on theories of dialogic accounting and transformative participatory evaluation to posit an agonistic approach to beneficiary participative evaluation. Findings reveal the importance of considering patterns of beneficiary engagement within the nonprofit organisation, what beneficiaries want the outcome of the evaluation to be, and the operation of pluralism at multiple levels. All of these are important so as to avoid an accountability ‘sham-ritual’, where beneficiary engagement is symbolic rather than substantive. Findings lead to the development of participative evaluation frameworks for each case studied.

O. Aijazi Why Technocratic Understandings of Humanitarian Accountability Undermine Local Communities Development in Practice, 2021, pp. 1–13. doi:10.1080/09614524.2021.1911939T. K. Bryan, R. W. Rob...

A consideration of dialogics within management and accountancy research is frequently thought of as a means of broadening narratives and the stakeholder groups who are able to participate in those narratives. Dialogics within social and environmental accounting and accountability research informs a dialogic theory of accounting that seeks to democratise and pluralise accounting (Bebbington et al. 2007; Brown 2009; Dillard and Vinnari 2019). What follows here is a review of dialogics within and across three academic papers. Each paper integrates a unique use of dialogics that offers potential to ‘ … generate more complex awareness of the entwined nature of organisational dialogues’ (Edwards, Hawkins, and Schedlitzki 2019, 748). Although contextually and demographically different, all three papers employ a dialogic analysis to consider accounts by different groups. The papers by Godowski, Negre, and Verdier (2019) and Passetti et al. (2019) explored the dialogic nature of the organisation through interviewing select stakeholder groups. Whilst the third paper by Edwards, Hawkins, and Schedlitzki (2019) takes a different dialogic approach, by re-reading accounts on the organisation, in order to explore constructions of ethical leadership through narratives.

Purpose Informed by the critical perspective of dialogic accounting theory, the purpose of this paper is to explore the use of evaluation as a means of enhancing accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations (NPOs). As a stakeholder group frequently marginalised by traditional accounting practices, the participation of beneficiaries within a NPO’s accountability structure is presented as a means of increasing social justice. Design/methodology/approach The research design used case studies involving two NPOs, examining documents and conducting interviews across three stakeholder groups, within each organisation. Findings Findings reveal that when viewed on beneficiaries’ terms, accountability to beneficiaries, through participative evaluation, needs to consider the particular timeframe of beneficiary engagement within each organisation. This temporal element positions downwards accountability to beneficiaries within NPOs as multi-modal. Research limitations/implications The research poses a limit to statistical generalisability outside of the specific research context. However, the research prioritises theoretical generalisation to social forms and meanings, and as such provides insights for literature. Practical implications In acknowledging that beneficiaries have accountability needs dependent upon their timeframe of participation, NPOs can better target their downwards accountability structures. This research also has practical implications in its attempt to action two of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value This paper makes a contribution to the limited research into nonprofit accountability towards beneficiaries. Dialogic accounting theory is enacted to explore how accountability can be practised on beneficiaries’ terms.

This report details both the process undertaken to develop an evaluation instrument that can collect feedback from children in the Love of Learning program and feedback the children have provided. A total of 178 children who are beneficiaries of the program completed the survey, and 91% confirmed the program was positively supporting them. They provided their feedback using a 20-question survey which measured four protective factors that previous research suggests supports children to engage with and enjoy learning, helping them to thrive in school and life. The protective factors are known to foster social, emotional, and academic development and success. There is a strong positive association between these factors, and the results of the survey suggest the Love of Learning program is influencing children's attitude towards learning and school. This report highlights some of the design challenges and complexities when engaging children in participatory evaluation. Importantly, to ensure children are given an opportunity to provide feedback, they must be supported by their foster carer who need to also feel informed and confident to be part of the evaluation process and empower children to speak up. Further research will now be conducted to implement the evaluation process more widely and ascertain if the protective factors improve a child’s health, educational engagement, and performance.

The purpose of this article is to present an evaluation design for the development of a Child Evaluation Framework (Framework). If implemented, this Framework would give four to six year old children attending early childhood services in an Australian context the capacity to impact upon the design and delivery of their early childhood service. As highlighted, the current lack of ability for children to have a voice and participate in the evaluation of their early childhood service infringes upon their rights under Article 12 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which calls for the child's right to freedom of expression and information, and for participation. It is hoped that the successful development and implementation of this design would advance child participation rights and child empowerment. The design utilises the principles of deliberative democratic evaluation, and methodologies advocated within the mosaic approach to researching with young children.