This information answers some common questions about the awards.
The focus of the Awards is to promote good practice and it is expected that recipients of the awards will consider the best ways to promote the good practice acknowledged in the award. Award recipients may be contacted by the AES to discuss ways they could be involved in promoting their work. Some examples might include seminars and workshops; articles and papers in journals; and publication of relevant material on the AES website.
In particular it is encouraged that recipients consider highlighting the following areas of their work as exemplars:
• elements of the evaluation policy or system
• developments in evaluation theory
• the evaluation methodology
• capability development processes
• the evaluation planning
• the processes supporting the utilisation of the report
• the negotiation processes used, or
• challenges and how they were overcome.
It is NOT a requirement that evaluation reports be published. The AES understands that some evaluations may be sensitive and confidential; and in many cases the report may not be the best way of promoting good practice. However, where it is appropriate and the commissioner of the evaluation approves sharing the report, it is quite acceptable to use an evaluation report to promote good practice.
It is only expected that the commissioner of the project supports the nomination where:
• a project (study, policy, framework, program) is being nominated for the award and
• a person or organisation, other than the evaluator, commissioned the project.
Is it necessary for the commissioner of the project to support the nomination?
A person or body who commissions a project nominated for an award is a participant in the project and would normally be treated as a party to the award. As such, the commissioner should be asked to support the nomination. If the commissioner of the project is unwilling to support the nomination, the nominee should provide an explanation of the circumstances for consideration by the AES Awards and Recognition Working Group.
This award is for organisational efforts to promote and use evaluation within the organisation, or to monitor performance. It might include, e.g. a policy requirement to evaluate every program every five years; or a program of evaluations over a period of time; or a performance monitoring and evaluation system. Nominees are encouraged to refer to previous recipients of this award.
Without limiting what might be considered to be an outstanding contribution, nominees are encouraged to consider the sorts of contributions made by past recipients of the award.
Past recipients have all been active participants for many years on the AES Board or Board Committees, or Conference Committees and have made active contributions to evaluation through one or more of:
• contributions to the body of knowledge
• education or training
• mentoring, writing or speaking on professional issues.
Work-in-progress is ineligible for AES awards. An evaluation or paper is eligible for nomination when it has been submitted to the commissioning agency at the end of a phase of work.
Doctoral or other research dissertations/papers may qualify for one of several awards, including the Best Evaluation Publication (Caulley Tulloch) Award, the Best Evaluation Policy and Systems Award and the Best Evaluation Study Award. Eligibility will depend on the research topic and the particular award criteria. In the case of a thesis or dissertation, all formal requirements for the degree must be satisfied before it can be nominated for an award.
The AES Awards generally recognise contemporary evaluation work. Nevertheless, some award nominations may be dependent on the passage of time to demonstrate their overall worth. This is particularly likely for the Outstanding Contribution to Evaluation (ET&S) Award and the Best Evaluation Policy and Systems Award. There is no retrospective time limit on nominations, but the AES Awards and Recognition Working Group is particularly interested in more recent examples of best practice in evaluation and in the continuing significance of an individual’s contributions to evaluation.
Claims made in the nomination must reference evidence to substantiate the claims. Where relevant, statements or claims should be cross-referenced to the specific location (i.e. page number/s or item) in any supporting documentation. Claims made without reference to supporting evidence will not be considered.
All relevant information that may assist the judges in their assessment of the nomination should be provided. Supporting information should be clearly labelled, included in the nomination’s table of contents and explicitly mentioned in the nomination proposal. Supporting information may be included as appendices.