A case study on a design-informed developmental evaluation

Developmental evaluation (DE) is an evaluation approach that aims to support the development of an innovation (Patton, 1994, 2011). This aim is achieved through supporting clients’ information needs through evaluative inquiry as they work to develop and refine the innovation. While core concepts and principles are beginning to be articulated and refined, challenges remain as to how to focus a developmental evaluation beyond those knowledge frameworks most immediate to clients to support innovation development. Anchoring a DE in knowledge frameworks other than those of the clients might direct attention to issues not yet obvious to clients, but which might further the goal of supporting innovation development if attended to. Drawing concepts and practices from the field of design may be one avenue with which to inform developmental evaluation in achieving its aim. Through a case study methodology, this research seeks to understand the nuances of operationalizing the guiding principles of DE as well as to investigate the utility, feasibility, and consequences of integrating design concepts and practices into developmental evaluation (design-informed developmental evaluation, “DI-DE”). It does so by documenting the efforts of a design-informed developmental evaluator and a task force of educators and researchers in a Faculty of Education as they work to develop a graduate-level education program. A systematic review into those purposeful efforts made to introduce DI-DE thinking into task force deliberations, and an analysis into the responses and consequences of those efforts shed light on what it had meant to practice DI-DE. As a whole, this research on evaluation is intended to further contemporary thinking about the closely coupled relationship between program development and evaluation in complex and dynamic environments.

The political economy of industrial policy in Peru and Ecuador: 1980-2010

This dissertation focuses on industrial policy in two developing countries: Peru and Ecuador. Informed by comparative historical analysis, it explains how the Import-Substitution Industrialization policies promoted during the 1970s by military administration unravelled in the following 30 years under the guidance of Washington Consensus policies. Positioning political economy in time, the research objectives were two-fold: understanding long-term policy reform patterns, including the variables that conditioned cyclical versus path-dependent dynamics of change and; secondly, investigating the direction and leverage of state institutions supporting the manufacturing sector at the dawn, peak and consolidation of neoliberal discourse in both countries. Three interconnected causal mechanisms explain the divergence of trajectories: institutional legacies, coordination among actors and economic distribution of power. Peru’s long tradition of a minimal state contrasts with the embedded character of Ecuador long tradition of legal protectionism dating back to the Liberal Revolution. Peru’s close policy coordination among stakeholders –state technocrats and business elites- differs from Ecuador’s “winners-take-all” approach for policy-making. Peru’s economic dynamism concentrated in Lima sharply departs from Ecuador’s competitive regional economic leaderships. This dissertation paid particular attention to methodology to understand the intersection between structure and agency in policy change. Tracing primary and secondary sources, as well as key pieces of legislation, became critical to understand key turning points and long-term patterns of change. Open-ended interviews (N=58) with two stakeholder groups (business elites and bureaucrats) compounded the effort to knit motives, discourses, and interests behind this long transition. In order to understand this amount of data, this research build an index of policy intervention as a methodological contribution to assess long patterns of policy change. These findings contribute to the current literature on State-market relations and varieties of capitalism, institutional change, and policy reform.