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.

A Minor Change?: A Case Study of Carleton Place's Integration of Minor Variance Procedures into Ontario's Development Permit System

The Development Permit System has been introduce with minimal directives for establishing a decision making process. This is in opposition to the long established process for minor variances and suggests that the Development Permit System does not necessarily incorporate all of Ontario’s fundamental planning principles. From this concept, the study aimed to identify how minor variances are incorporated into the Development Permit System. In order to examine this topic, the research was based around the following research questions: • How are ‘minor variance’ applications processed within the DPS? • To what extent do the four tests of a minor variance influence the outcomes of lower level applications in the DPS approval process? A case study approach was used for this research. The single-case design employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods including a review of academic literature, court cases, and official documents, as well as a content analysis of Class 1, 1A, and 2 Development Permit application files from the Town of Carleton Place that were decided between 2011 and 2015. Upon the completion of the content analysis, it was found that minor variance issues were most commonly assigned to Class 1 applications. Planning staff generally met approval timelines and embraced their delegated approval authority, readily attaching conditions to applications in order to mitigate off-site impacts. While staff met the regulatory requirements of the DPS, ‘minor variance’ applications were largely decided on impact alone, demonstrating that the principles established by the four tests, the defining quality of the minor variance approval process, had not transferred to the Development Permit System. Alternatively, there was some evidence that the development community has not fully adjusted to the requirements of the new approvals process, as some applications were supported using a rationale containing the four tests. Subsequently, a set of four recommendations were offered which reflect the main themes established by the findings. The first two recommendations are directed towards the Province, the third to municipalities and the fourth to developers and planning consultants: 1) Amend Ontario Regulation 608/06 so that provisions under Section 4(3)(e) fall under Section 4(2). 2) Change the rhetoric from “combining elements of minor variances” to “replacing minor variances”. 3) Establish clear evaluation criteria. 4) Understand the evaluative criteria of the municipality in which you are working.

Developmental Paths and Activities of Successful Sport Coaches

The purpose of this research report is to present an overview of an ongoing, international project designed to chart the developmental paths and activities of sport coaches. This brief report includes three sections: (a) conceptual framework used to guide the project, (b) project design and methodology, and (c) results from pilot studies with a sample of 15 successful coaches working in different sport contexts in the United States Unlike the findings for athletic profiles, where several trends across coaching contexts were evident, only one trend was found in how these diverse groups of coaches invested their time in coach developmental activities. In relation to other coaching activities very little time was devoted to formal coach education on an annual basis. The results reinforce the need to consider the coaching context when examining coach development and when designing coach development initiatives.