Also known as collaborative evaluation, empowerment evaluation, social justice evaluation, or democratic evaluation, participatory evaluation asserts that when the stakeholders who are closest to the program have an active role in evaluation, results are more relevant and useful. Furthermore, when evaluation is viewed as a process rather than a product, there can be a fundamental shift in program stakeholders’ perceptions of the program and a recognition of the expert knowledge they possess. Participatory evaluation can be used “to critique society, raise consciousness, and change the balance of power in favor of those less powerful” (Patton, 2017, p. 66), all notable goals of many PLIs.

Evaluation facilitators may work with program stakeholders to co-create the evaluation design, select and adapt the methods used, collect and analyze data, and share the findings to different audiences. Indicators used to measure success may reflect questions generated by staff and parents rather than indicators imposed by external sources. For parent leaders and other stakeholders, participatory evaluation can be an empowering process, since it puts them in charge, helps develop skills, and shows that their views count.

Guijt, I. (2014). Participatory Approaches, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 5, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
This guide, written for UNICEF, looks at the use of participatory approaches in impact evaluation.

Guijt, I & Gavent, J. (1998). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change. IDS Policy Briefings. The Institute of Development Studies Policy Briefing #3
This briefing compares participatory monitoring and evaluation with conventional approaches, details some of the benefits and challenges; and gives examples of qualitative tools.

Baker, A. & Bruner, B. 2004. Increasing Participation in Evaluating – Bruner Foundation Guide. The Bruner Foundation, Cambridge, MA
This guide discusses how organization staff, evaluators and funders are involved in participatory evaluation and how evaluation thinking can ripple throughout an organization.

Culturally responsive evaluators are aware, knowledgable, and appreciative of the culture of program participants and the cultural, social, and historical context of their communities. Culturally responsive evaluators also take time to examine and express their own biases. The aim of culturally responsive evaluation is to advance social justice. Therefore, evaluators act as advocates for underrepresented groups and communities. This may mean looking at deficit perspectives held by program personnel or examining unequal access to the program by race, language, immigration status, etc. 

In order to be culturally responsive, evaluations tend to engage stakeholders as active participants in framing the right questions, designing surveys and interview protocols, and analyzing, interpreting, and communicating data. However, the approach's explicit focus on social justice differentiates it from traditional participatory evaluation.

Frierson, H.T., Hood, S., & Hughes, G.B. (2002). A Guide to Conducting Culutrally Responsive Evaluations.
This guide explains the need for culturally responsive evaluation and shares tips for each stage of the evaluation process.

Developmental Evaluation (DE) is an evaluation approach that can assist social innovators to develop social change initiatives in complex or uncertain environments. DE originators liken their approach to the role of research & development in the private sector product development process because it facilitates real-time, or close to real-time, feedback to program staff thus facilitating a continuous development loop. Michael Quinn Patton, a founder of DE, is careful to describe this approach as one choice that is responsive to context, but not intended as the solution to every situation. Development evaluation is particularly suited to innovation in the program or radical program re-design, or when there are substantial organizational changes or policy reforms. DE is especially appropriate when the way forward is uncertain and key stakeholders are not in agreement on how to proceed.

Dozois, E., Langlois, M., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2010). A practitioner’s guide to developmental evaluation. The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation and the International Institute for Child Rights and Development.
This guide explores key aspects of Developmental Evaluation (DE), offers suggestions for implementing the practice and includes a range of DE resources to help with its facilitation.

Gamble, J. A. (2006). A Developmental Evaluation Primer. The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation and the International Institute for Child Rights and Development.
This guide from outlines the basic principles of Developmental Evaluation and provides a range of tools to support its implementation.

Patton, M.Q. (2006). Evaluation for the Way We Work. The Nonprofit Quarterly. Vol. 13 (1): 28-33.
This article describes differences between traditional and developmental evaluation.

Developmental evaluation as alternative to formative assessment
Video: Dr. Michael Patton outlines the differences between developmental, formative and summative evaluation by describing DE as an evaluation for a developing or emerging initiative while summative and formative evaluation are used to examine established programs. Total running time: 3 mins

Planning and Evaluating for Social Change: An Evening at SFU with Michael Quinn Patton
Video: in this presentation, Michael Quinn Patton focuses on the changing landscape of evaluation through the use of examples and interactive exercises in order to demonstrate how a developmental evaluation framework can be used to connect people and create more effective social change strategies. Total running time: 1.5 hrs

Developmental evaluation
Audio: This webpage provides links to six audio files of an interview between Mark Cabaj and Michael Patton on development evaluation in which they discuss: the power of evaluation thinking; the value of evaluation in developmental situations; the what & why of “patch evaluation”; and concepts & tools for working with developmental evaluation.

What it is

Advocacy evaluation is the process of evaluating the progress of advocacy efforts and/or the impact (or influence) of advocacy efforts on the political process. Advocacy evaluation may involve many actors, including the advocates themselves (one or more groups pursuing a common goal), community members, policy makers at various levels of government, those impacted by the advocacy (e.g., children), and other involved persons or groups. Before engaging in advocacy evaluation, researchers must consider the appropriate goals and outcomes to be studied. Simply because an advocacy campaign did not result in a concrete outcome (e.g., new legislation) does not mean it was not successful. In addition, evaluators must also consider the appropriate timeline for observing any progress or outcomes. Advocacy organizations may experience bursts of progress interspersed with periods of relative stagnation. These peaks and valleys can occur over very long periods of time, and evaluators must be responsive to these conditions.

Tools

Lynn, J. (2014). Assessing and Evaluating Changes in Advocacy Fields. Center for Evaluation Innovation.
This guide describes advocacy evaluation and offers practical tools.

Reisman, J., Gienapp, A., & Stachowiak, S. (2007). A Handbook of Data Collection tools Companion to Guide to Measuring Advocacy and Impact. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
These examples are actual or modified tools used for evaluating campaigns related to social change or policy change.

Relevant tools:
Organizational capacity self-assessment tools, p. 7-11
Measuring public support tools, p. 15-19
Measuring media support tools, p.20-23
Measuring awareness and prioritization of issues, p. 2-6
Tracking policy tools, p. 24-31

Coffman J, Reed E (n.d.), Unique Methods in Advocacy Evaluation. Harvard Family Research Project, Innovation Network.
This brief describes four new methods (summarized in the matrix on the next page) that were developed to respond to advocacy’s unique measurement challenges.

Relevant tools:
Policymaker ratings, p. 5-6
Bellwether interview process, p. 3-4

Further Reading

David, T., Crystal Foster, C., Guthrie, K., & Louie, J. (2005). The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities The California Endowment.
This "state of the field" report provides an overview of the challenges involved in assessing policy change work. Includes practical advice from grantmakers and funders on developing a theory of change, considerations for selecting and measuring benchmarks, and insights for working with grantees.

Teles, S. & Schmitt, M. (2011). The Elusive Craft of Evaluating Advocacy. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
This article explains the challenges of evaluating advocacy and defines qualities of a good evaluator.

What it is

Coghlan and colleagues describe a “4D” cycle for appreciative inquiry (others use a similar “4I” cycle):

Discovery: Participants identify a high point of their organization, key life-giving factors of the organization, or three wishes for the organization. Participants share in pairs, then as a group, in order to identify common themes and design an interview protocol.

Dream: The group analyzes the collected data and uses the data to imagine the organization functioning at its best. This step can include visualization and other exercises.

Design: Participants propose processes, strategies and systems to build on what’s working, make decisions about how to move forward, and craft detailed design statements.

Destiny: Participants implement their design statements, monitor progress, and launch new appreciative inquiry cycles.

Tools

Preskill, H. & Grindle, A. Guide to Appreciative Inquiry. FSG.
This guide offers a sample facilitation guide and questions for conducting appreciative inquiry.

Relevant tools:
Facilitation guide: Page 10
Sample questions: Page 11

Further Reading

Coghlan, A., Preskill, H. & Tzavaras Catsambas, T. An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 100, winter 2003, 5-22.
This chapter explains how and when appreciative inquiry may be used, including real-life examples.

What it is

Contribution Analysis is an approach for assessing causal questions (i.e. which features of the program caused certain outcomes) and inferring causality in real-life evaluations. The essential value of contribution analysis is that it offers an approach designed to reduce uncertainty about the contribution the intervention is making to the observed results through an increased understanding of why the observed results have occurred (or not!) and the roles played by the intervention and other internal and external factors. Use of this analysis requires a well-articulated Theory of Change.

Tools

No tools at this time.

Further Reading

Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative, Brief 16.
This short piece outlines the basic steps for performing contribution analysis.

Mayne, J. (2008). Addressing Attribution Through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1–24
This longer piece explains the reasoning behind contribution analysis and offers more detail on how to carry out the method.

What it is

Document review helps evaluators understand background information about the organization, including its mission, vision, budget, etc.; what is happening in the organization (e.g. content of meetings, how many people are being served); and how the organization frames its work. Documents may include program reports, satisfaction surveys, meeting minutes and agenda, newsletters, fliers, etc. Once these documents are collected, it is useful to speak with people who can offer background on the documents (e.g. how accurate they are, whether any information is confidential), and to catalogue the documents in a spreadsheet, including the type of document, how to access it, and what evaluation question it answers. Documents may be analyzed with qualitative analysis software.

Tools

No tools at this time.

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Document Review. Evaluation Briefs, 18.

What it is

In essence, a focus group is a group interview facilitated by a trained leader to learn about a specific topic and to guide future action. As a guided discussion, the facilitator uses a list of questions that ensures important issues are covered and also allows flexibility for group concerns to arise. A benefit of using a focus group is that a lot of information can be gathered in a short amount of time because the group dynamics can elicit more of the participants’ point of view and additional insights can be gained from the interactions of the group. Drawbacks of using focus groups is the amount of time and resources needed for recruitment, facilitation and analysis. There is also less opportunity to collect in-depth information from individuals.

Conducting a focus group will require: planning date, time and location; finding a facilitator and recorder (note taker or tape recorder); preparing 8-10 open ended questions; recruiting 6-8 people who are representative of the community’s/organization’s demographics; facilitating and recording the conversation; analyzing the data looking for patterns and common themes; sharing findings with the group; and using the results. It is best to have “like” individuals within focus groups; for example, all parents or all policymakers. PLIs can use focus groups as a way to have a more nuanced, varied and in depth understanding of participants’ experiences while at the same time creating the space to affirm those experiences. The number of focus groups to conduct will depend on the questions, resources available and the timeline of your project.

Tools

No tools at this time.

Further Reading

Krueger, R.A. University of Minnesota. (2002). Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews.

Eliot & Associates. (2005). Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group.

Each of these documents offers a practical guide to every step of the focus group process.

What it is

Frame analysis is typically used to understand the frames that stakeholders employ around specific issues. It may be possible to also adapt frame analysis to understand public officials' thinking about parents and parent leadership. Several methodologies have been developed for assessing how individuals, organizations, advocacy campaigns, public officials and the news media employ “frames” around issues of public interest. Frames are sets of concepts or values that we use to make sense of the world and to decide how to respond to new information; Gamson and Modigliani (1987) define a frame as the “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning.”

Sophisticated quantitative frame analysis of news media reports can be performed using software specialized software. Other researchers undertake qualitative frame analysis drawing on interviews, focus groups, written documents, statements in public meetings, and news media reports. Lynn (2014) describes an approach to field frame analysis to understand the extent to which actors in an advocacy field share overarching goals, shared values, and language that defines goals and values in order to inspire collective action. This approach to field frame analysis draws on data sources including survey or interview data about organizations’ goals and values, evidence of shared goals and language in documents, documentation of behaviors that evince specific values and goals, reflective dialogue with stakeholders to interpret behaviors, and “q-methodology” surveys that include forced responses between pairs of statements to uncover values.

Tools

Lynn, J. (2014). Assessing and Evaluating Changes in Advocacy Fields. Center for Evaluation Innovation.

Relevant tool:
Measuring field frame, 13-18

Further Reading

No further readings at this time.

What it is

Coffman and Reed (2009) describe a qualitative strategy for capturing reflections after intense periods of activity related to an advocacy or organizing campaign. This strategy recognizes that advocacy work is unpredictable and must flexibly respond to policy opportunities, and that those engaged in carrying out the campaigns have little time or capacity to document work during the height of activity.

Immediately after an intense period of activity, an evaluator(s) convenes either focus groups or individual interviews to capture reflections on the public mood and political context, how participants responded to events, perspectives on outcomes, and strategies for the future. Potential questions include: “What events triggered this intense period?” “How was the organization’s response determined? How was that decision communicated to other partners and allies?” “What elements of the organization’s response worked well?”

Tools

Innovation Network. (2007). Intense Period Debrief Protocol.
This tool includes a protocol for conducting an intense period debrief.

Further Reading

Coffman, J. & Reid, E. Unique Methods in Advocacy Evaluation. Pp 7-8.
This resource details various methods for evaluating advocacy and includes a brief overview of intense period debriefs.

What it is

Interviews are useful if the goal is to learn in depth information about someone’s perceptions or behaviors. They can be done in person, over the phone or video conferencing. Face-to-face interviews provide the opportunity to observe nonverbal behavior and more flexibility to probe for deeper meaning. Depending on the information being collected, face-to-face interviews are ideal but in the case that they become too expensive and time consuming or the data collected is sensitive and confidential, telephone interviews are the next best option. With the exception of being able to observe non-verbal cues, telephone interviews provide some of the same advantages as face-to-face interviews in addition to providing access to more participants.

Interviews can be structured or semi-structured. During structured interviews, the interviewer asks the exact same questions of everybody in the same order. This allows for easy comparison between different respondents’ answers. During semi-structured interviews, the interviewer has a predetermined set of questions but may choose to ask additional questions based on what they learn during the interview. These interviews are best when comparisons across individuals are less relevant and the evaluation is more exploratory. During any type of interview, it is important for the interviewer to build rapport with the interviewee.

Tools

Parent Leadership Evaluation Network Created Interview Questions

Further Reading

Vilela, M. Conducting Interviews. Community Toolbox.
This webpage briefly describes the what, who, how, and why of interviews.

What it is

In policy advocacy, composition consists of the variety of constituencies (and their advocates) who are part of a "field' of work, the readiness of those constituencies and advocates to take action, and the influence that the constituencies and advocates hold in each stage of the policy process. The composition of voices participating in a field shapes the type of questions that are raised, the strategies employed, and the potential solutions generated. Tracking the composition of a given field over time can help measure the influence of parent leaders, and whether their roles are shifting and growing.

Composition can be measured through several data sources. Observations of coalition meetings, public meetings, hearings, etc. can help identify which constituencies are represented and which are helping to make decisions. Similarly, monitoring meeting participant lists, membership lists, hearing transcripts, and news coverage of public events can provide evidence of composition. Interviews with advocates, policymakers and “bellwethers” (individuals who are highly informed and connected in a particular field) are opportunities to ask about which constituencies are affected by a given issue and whether they are present or represented in advocacy around that issue; which groups have and lack influence and how their influence is shifting over time, and how and where decisions are made in the field.

Tools

Coffman, J. User’s Guide to Evaluation Planning, Julia Coffman< Relevant tool: Pages 18-19
This resource includes a description of bellwether interview methodology and sample questions.

Lynn, J. (2014). Assessing and Evaluating Changes in Advocacy Fields. Center for Evaluation Innovation.

Relevant tool: Pages 45-56

Further Reading

No further reading at this time.

What it is

Observations can be used to gather information about what an organization, participants, and initiative staff are actually doing. The benefits of using observation as a method are that data can be collected where and when an event or activity is occurring; it does not rely on people’s willingness to provide information; and it allows the evaluator to see what people actually do rather than what they say they do. The downsides of observations are that they can be susceptible to observer bias; they do not provide an understanding of why people do what they do; and they can be time consuming.

The design of observations should fit the evaluation questions since that will help determine the location, time and place, frequency, observer, what will be observed and circumstances under which observations will be made. Sometimes, observers use a structured protocol with a checklist or rating scale that tells them exactly what to look out for. Other times, observers try to note everything they see and make sense of the information later. Importantly, observers note non-verbal behaviors in addition to what is said.

Tools

Taylor-Powell, E. & Steele, S. Collecting Evaluation Data: Direct Observation. University of Wisconsin Extension.
This brief guide offers an overview of evaluation and sample evaluation protocols in the appendix, which could be adapted for other use.

Further Reading

Community Toolbox. Section 3. Data Collection: Designing an Observational System.
This guide offers ways to observe the behavior, the conditions, and the changes - or lack of changes - that will answer your evaluation questions.

What it is

Stakeholders use appreciative inquiry interviews to elicit examples about what they have learned or been able to do (alone or with others) as a result of the initiative. As a group, they place these impacts (and others that come to mind) in a map, trying to group similar outcomes and provide specific examples. Ripple effect mapping is useful for developing or refining initiative-specific theories of change that reflect participants’ values and experiences, and for capturing surprising or indirect outcomes that may be overlooked with more traditional short/medium/long term theory of change approaches.

Tools

Washington State University Extension. Ripple Effects Mapping for Evaluation.
This curriculum demonstrates how to use mind-mapping to draw the stories and ripple effects of a complex program and code it to measure outcomes.

Further Reading

Kollock, D.H. (2012). Ripple Effect Mapping: A “Radiant” Way to Capture Program Impacts. Journal of Extension, 50(5).
This brief piece offers a quick overview of ripple effect mapping and an example.

What it is

Social frameworks can be helpful for illustrating distributed accountability - that is, that particular outcome depends on the actions of multiple individuals or groups. Each section of the framework describes expected changes for sets of actors and changes in relationships between them (“initiative staff will…/experienced parent leaders will…/new parent leaders will…” or “parent leaders will…/community members and parents will…/public officials will…”). Each set of statements is attached to verifiable indicators of change, measures for assessing indicators, and assumptions about context and other important relationships.

Tools

None found at this time.

Further Reading

Shaxson, L. & Clench, B. (2011). Outcome mapping and social frameworks: Tools for designing, delivering and monitoring policy via distributed partnerships.
This paper describes in detail how, why, and when to use social frameworks, as well as outcome mapping.

What it is

Social network analysis examines connections and relationships, and can be applied at multiple levels – individuals, organizations, communities, etc. This method often employs surveys and interviews, but can also rely on documentation of interactions and exchanges such as email records and observations of public meetings (Maya-Jariego and Holgado, 2015). It systematically documents relationships between units and often depicts them visually. Social network analysis can examine the density of connections in a network; the degree of centralization or decentralization in a network; how central or peripheral specific individuals are to the network; and the reciprocity of connections (Valente, et al., 2014).

Social network analysis is relevant to multiple dimensions of the indicator framework. It has been used in evaluations of community-based initiatives to examine empowerment and sense of community (Maya-Jariego, 2004) and the emergence of individual leaders. Network analysis can help show the nature of connections between parent leaders and public officials, as well as networks for collective action (Hoppe and Reinelt, 2010) and the formation and sustainability of policy advocacy alliances and coalitions (Valente, et al, 2014) and the social capital that sustains democratic participation.

Tools

Egonet is a program for the collection and analysis of individuals’ social networks. It helps you create the questionnaire, collect data, and provide general global network measures and data matrices that can be used for further analysis by other software.

Gephi enables users to map and analyze social networks.

Further Reading

Hoppe, B. & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social Network Analysis and the Evaluation of Leadership Networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 600-619.
This article explains how social network analysis may be used as a tool to capture different types of leadership.

Isidro, M. & Holdago, D. (2015). Network analysis for social and community interventions. Psychosocial Intervention, 24(3), 121-124.
This brief article describes how social network analysis can capture relationships within community coalitions, as well as individual social support.

What it is

Storytelling in research and evaluation captures narratives from participants that delve deeply into their own lived experiences rather than responding using predetermined questionnaires or surveys. This type of inquiry often allows marginalized voices to surface in ways that are not present with other research methods. Stories come in many forms including counter-stories, testimonios, digital stories, and public narratives. Counter-stories are those told by marginalized communities that challenge dominant and often deficit ideologies. Testimonios are stories that call for critical reflections within the sociopolitical context of participants, and are also often used by marginalized voices. Digital storytelling is another powerful and participatory method to collect participant narratives. In a facilitated workshop, participants actively construct and reconstruct their stories through the process of narration; stories are filmed and shared. The public narrative captures participants stories’ of “self,” “us,” and “now” while moving others towards action. Using these varying types of storytelling methodologies to further research and evaluation of programs can provide richer understanding of the program itself and its outcomes.

Tools

Zhang, S. & De Vulpillieres, V. Public Narrative Participant Guide.
This curriculum guides groups through the process of creating a story of self, us, and now. It is designed to be used as an organizing tool.

Storycorps App.
This app guides users through the interview experience, from start to finish with easy-to-use tools to help you prepare interview questions, record high-quality conversations on their mobile device, and upload the audio to the Library of Congress and the Storycorps online archive.

Further Reading

Better Evaluation. Stories.
This brief guide offers information on when to use stories for evaluation, different types of stories, and examples.

Ganz, M. (2009). Why Stories Matter: The art and craft of social change (adapted) Sojourners Magazine, 38(3), 16.
This short personal narrative explains how stories strengthen leadership and action.

Lewin, T. Digital storytelling. (2011). Participatory Learning and Action, (63), 54-62.
This article describes the basic steps of digital storytelling and how it can be a tool for community-building.

What it is

Surveys lend themselves to collecting data relatively cheaply and quickly from a lot of people; they facilitate pre-and post-test comparisons of the same items and comparisons over time; and they are widely used in social science research so there are lots of existing survey scales to borrow/adapt. In a PLI, surveys could be used to collect broad information about parents’ experiences, assessment of the curriculum, own perceptions of their transformation, and own ratings of their skills and beliefs. Drawbacks of surveys are that  respondents can't easily elaborate on answers; questions might be understood differently by different people; and individual responses don't necessarily reflect the collective/relational nature of PLIs.

Surveys can be conducted in various formats, including paper, computer assisted calling, web based data collection database, and text message. Some surveys may be constructed to have “open-ended” or “closed-ended” responses. With open-ended responses, respondents have the opportunity to answer in a narrative form, whereas with closed-ended responses, respondents are asked to choose from a range of predetermined answers. Open-ended responses take more time and resources to handle due to the challenges of analyzing the data.

Tools

Survey tools created by Algorhythm and the Parent Leadership Indicators Project coming soon!

Further Reading

Hampton, C. & Vilela, M. Section 13: Conducting Surveys. Community Toolbox.
This webpage details the basics of conducting surveys, including survey creation, distribution and collection, and how to utilize survey data.

Niles, R. (1999). Statistics Every Writer Should Know.
This webpage provides definitions of basic statistical terms that are useful when analyzing and making sense of survey data.

What it is

Timeline mapping helps participants understand important markers of progress in relationship to one another, to the organization’s actions and strategies, and to external events and contextual factors. It can document changes in policies, structures, and social norms. Timeline mapping is most appropriate for a retrospective (backward-looking) analysis, when participants in the process have access to credible information and knowledge for verifying the information on the timeline.

Timeline mapping requires a facilitator or facilitators, either internal or external, who devote substantial time to developing the initial timeline based on documentary evidence. Once the organization has determined the time frame, scale (local, state, national) and topical focus of the timeline (for example, early childhood education quality), the facilitators use existing data including organizational notes, strategy documents, grant reports, media reports, existing evaluation reports, and other artifacts to begin to populate the timeline.

The facilitator shares the timeline with stakeholders in the organization (and key partners, as appropriate) and leads a group reflection on the timeline. Participants can add key events or add detail to items already on the timeline, and are invited to share their reflections on patterns and connections and that they observe. Participants are also asked to share stories that elaborate on events. The timeline can be updated at regular intervals or when important decisions need to be made. Facilitators can conduct external interviews (for example, with public officials or academics) or conduct secondary research to verify internally-generated data and to add context to the timeline.

Tools

FSG. Guide to Timeline Mapping.
This tool offers a step-by-step guide to creating a timeline map.

Further Reading

No further readings at this time.

What it is

Trend mapping can be useful for understanding how policies and social/cultural norms are shifting, and for understanding the relationships between outputs, outcomes, and external factors. In trend mapping, a group of people use their collective experience and knowledge to generate a map of trends supporting and impeding progress toward an organization's goals in a specific topic area. Through a facilitated process, group members generate lists of trends, map them into categories, and identify the most salient. They use the map to assess the current situation, reflect on past efforts to influence trends, assess potential courses of action, and plan action steps.

Trend mapping can also incorporate research on trends, through secondary sources, media accounts, or interviews with key informants. This research can be conducted by the facilitator in advance of the session or as a follow-up to address remaining questions. It's often useful to revisit trend maps at regular intervals to update them and assess progress.

Tools

FSG. Guide to Trend Mapping.

Further Reading

No further readings at this time.