I. PREPARATION
Before class, please prepare the following:
- Read The Next Frontier in Social Impact Measurement Isn’t Measurement at All (Ruff & Olsen, 2016) about the emerging role of analysts for social impact evaluation reports reports.
- Read People, Power and Accountability (Nicholl, 2014) about power dynamics in evaluation.
- Browse the following web tools/resources (and others you may discover) to get a sense of how social impact is being measured by a sample of organizations, and try to think which of these (or which parts of these) could be useful for your case study topics/organizations:
- IRIS (Impact Reporting & Investment Standards)
- GRI Standards (Global Reporting Initiative Standards)
- Read Why Taking a Step Back From Social Impact Assessment Can Lead to Better Results (Fuzi, Gryszkiewicz & Sikora, 2018)
- Optional: Read Chapter 4: To Cure One Child in the book, Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism that Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs (Muhammad Yunus, 2010). This resource is available in ebook form via the Library Course Reserves on Canvas.
- Consider: What are the ways that Cure2Children could measure its impact? To whom is it accountable?
- Complete the Accountability & Impact Assessment Pre-assessment on Canvas.
II. ClASS SLIDES
COMM485 101 W1 Class 11 10182023
*********
If you have not already done so, please read the paper “A Brief Introduction to Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)”, by Werner Ulrich. Of particular interest is the checklist of Boundary Questions, which help define the purpose, beneficiaries and what is relevant to the system of interest. The framework in this paper may be helpful for Selected Case Study team assignment. (This article can be accessed on the Library Course Reserves via Canvas.)
Checklist of Boundary Questions (Ulrich, 2005, p.11)
SOURCES of MOTIVATION
- Who is (ought to be) the client or beneficiary? That is, whose interests are (should be) served?
- What is (ought to be) the purpose? That is, what are (should be) the consequences?
- What is (ought to be) the measure of improvement or measure of success? That is, how can (should) we determine that the consequences, taken together, constitute an improvement?
SOURCES OF POWER
- Who is (ought to be) the decision-maker? That is, who is (should be) in a position to change the measure of improvement?
- What resources and other conditions of success are (ought to be) controlled by the decision-maker? That is, what conditions of success can (should) those involved control?
- What conditions of success are (ought to be) part of the decision environment? That is, what conditions can (should) the decision-maker not control (e.g. from the viewpoint of those not involved)?
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
- Who is (ought to be) considered a professional or further expert? That is, who is (should be) involved as competent provider of experience and expertise?
- What kind expertise is (ought to be) consulted? That is, what counts (should count) as relevant knowledge?
- What or who is (ought to be) assumed to be the guarantor of success? That is, where do (should) those involved seek some guarantee that improvement will be achieved – for example, consensus among experts, the involvement of stakeholders, the experience and intuition of those involved, political support?
SOURCES OF LEGITIMATION
- Who is (ought to be) witness to the interests of those affected but not involved? That is, who is (should be) treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and who argues (should argue) the case of those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves, including future generations and non-human nature?
- What secures (ought to secure) the emancipation of those affected from the premises and promises of those involved? That is, where does (should) legitimacy lie?
- What worldview is (ought to be) determining? That is, what different visions of “improvement” are (should be) considered, and how are they (should they be) reconciled?