http://wiki.e-consultation.org/guide/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=TheoryEvalTechniques 2026-04-12T03:48:23Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0 http://wiki.e-consultation.org/guide/index.php?title=TheoryEvalTechniques&diff=3438&oldid=prev 2006-05-07T16:27:22Z

<p></p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>==Methods and techniques for evaluating e-consultation==<br /> This is the list of techniques suggested in the [[TheoryMarburg|E-valuing E-consultation workshop]] at the [http://www.academic-conferences.org/eceg/eceg2006/eceg06-home.htm 6th European Conference on E-Government] in Marburg on 27th Apr. 2006. The instructions were:<br /> <br /> ''List every evaluation methodology or technique you can think of that might be used to measure, assess or understand e-consultation.''<br /> <br /> #Numbers<br /> ##Number of actual respondents <br /> ##Number of hits on the e-consultation site (Webstats) <br /> ##Range of types of participants <br /> ##representativity study of participants: are they a good sample of the affected population. <br /> ##Number of &amp;quot;e-consultation&amp;quot; words being cited in journal <br /> #Accounting<br /> ##Value for Money study <br /> ##Return on Investments (ROI) <br /> ##Return on relationship (ROR) measurement which includes indirect benefits ##Cost benefit analysis <br /> ##Impact analysis<br /> ##Did it work - did it bring up a solution? <br /> #Surveys<br /> ##Stakeholders satisfaction survey <br /> ##Satisfaction survey: a consultation worked if, after the complete cycle (once decisions were taken and participant received feedback) all involved parties -including the consulters- feel it was useful, think that the decission making will improve as a result of it and are willing to participate again on such process <br /> ##e-Poll on e-consultation website<br /> #Content analysis<br /> ##were all relevant points of view represented in the process? <br /> ##discourse analysis of questions, feedback <br /> ##Garrison's Theory of Critical Thinking (content analysis) <br /> ##Number of ideas used in preparation of documents discussing decision to be made <br /> ##social network analysis of communications among stakeholders in networked governance<br /> #Qualitative<br /> ##qualitative interviews with consulters and consultees before, during and after the process <br /> ##focus groups with consultees after the process <br /> ##Focus group with projective questions on the experience <br /> ##Structured interviews with decision makers <br /> ##real time blogs and/or forums <br /> ##get people to tell their story of the consultation on the city website <br /> ##interviews with range of LG officers on quality of participation <br /> #Long term<br /> ##longer term impact <br /> ##longitudinal study of return visits to consultations <br /> ##longditudinal study of citizens attitudes to a local government <br /> ##one year down the track return to consultees for reflection <br /> #Comparative<br /> ##construct ontologies of consultation types <br /> ##comparative studies with like consultations elsewhere <br /> ##deriving patterns from case studies <br /> <br /> They need to be assigned to [[TheoryValuingConsultation|value categories]].<br /> </div>

davenewman