Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.499227
Title: Congratulations, you've failed : evaluating collaborative projects through logical frameworks and stories
Author: Vinson, Thomas M.
Awarding Body: London School of Economics and Political Science
Current Institution: London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London)
Date of Award: 2007
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access through Institution:
Abstract:
To follow are 31 different retrospective logframes representing coded data from the NC-Exchange Community NETworker Demonstration. In my approach, I have taken interview data from project participants in three categories - NC-Exchange staff, NETworkers, and host organization directors - in addition to the original NETworker project proposal, and coded the information using the structure of the logical framework. In all, I have coded 26 separate items from different project sources. More specifically, I have placed each statement (or portion of a statement) made by the participants (or sentences, in the case of the proposal) into the box in the logframe matrix that I feel best represents the statement's meaning relative to its position within the overall system of the NETworker project. In this way, each statement becomes a disaggregated Wider Objective, Immediate Objective, Output, Activity, Indicator of Achievement, Means of Verification, or Assumption of the project. Because the individual retrospective logframes based on statements from the full interview transcripts are quite long (in some cases, more than 40 pages), I have also produced synthesized versions of several retrospective logframes in which I capture the main points in bullet-point format. In the long versions of the retrospective logframes, statements have been left intact; in the short versions, individual statements have been shortened or summarized into their key themes. In summarizing them, I have sought to leave the phrases in the same language used by the respondents in order to preserve the intended meanings. Statements that have not fit within the logframe categories have not been captured, though they remain accessible via the transcripts. For a more detailed description of the method, please refer to Appendix 6 of the thesis.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.499227  DOI: Not available
Share: