Measuring natural capital: towards accounts for the UK and a basis for improved decision-making
In: Oxford review of economic policy, Band 35, Heft 1, S. 88-108
ISSN: 1460-2121
3 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Oxford review of economic policy, Band 35, Heft 1, S. 88-108
ISSN: 1460-2121
In: New directions for evaluation: a publication of the American Evaluation Association, Band 2023, Heft 177, S. 75-84
ISSN: 1534-875X
AbstractAcross the nation, the American Evaluation Association (AEA) recognizes over thirty volunteer‐led organizations called local affiliates. These affiliates provide professional development, networking, and field building opportunities that influence the local evaluation marketplace and ecosystem in ways that have not been systematically studied or understood within the larger discourse of continuing education for evaluators. In this chapter, we present a single case study on the long‐term efforts of ¡Milwaukee Evaluation! Inc., the AEA Local Affiliate in Wisconsin, to recenter social justice in evaluator training and education. The case study is presented in the form of two design principles that have shaped the affiliate's work over the past 10 years and helped move the local evaluation marketplace and infrastructure toward deeper expressions of social justice. The affiliate uses a two‐generation approach, creates liminal spaces as the site for critical consciousness raising and emancipatory capacity building, validates (working class) evaluators of color, and covers topics such as reparations and neoliberalism in its educational offerings. The rationale for this approach is discussed.
In: Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE ; an international journal, Band 13, Heft 4, S. 432-437
ISSN: 1556-2654
Lengthy review times for institutional review boards (IRBs) are a well-known barrier to research. In response to numerous calls to reduce review times, we devised "Real-Time IRB," a process that drastically reduces IRB review time. In this, investigators and study staff attend the IRB meeting and make changes to the protocol while the IRB continues its meeting, so that final approval can be issued at the meeting. This achieved an overall reduction in time from submission to the IRB to final approval of 40%. While this process is time and resource intensive, and cannot address all delays in research, it shows great promise for increasing the pace by which research is translated to patient care.