Learning Evaluation of the Disability Rights Fund

The Disability Rights Fund (DRF) is a partnership between funders and the disability community that provides grants and other support for work at country-level towards the realisation of rights affirmed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. DRF believes that enhancing the participation of persons with disabilities in the realisation of their rights will have an impact on poverty among persons with disabilities.In 2012, DRF conducted its first external evaluation. The evaluation, which was conducted by Universalia, concluded with an overall positive assessment of the Fund's performance, highlighting the Fund's relevance and progress towards its stated results. In 2013, DRF concluded another partnership agreement with DFID of the duration of 3 years. Both as part of the conditions set in this partnership agreement and as DRF being a learning-oriented organization, DRF launched a call for proposals to conduct a learning evaluation, consisting of two interrelated components: the development or adjustment of DRF's tools for data collection, recording, and management; and the mid-term evaluation of DRF grantmaking operations.The Learning Evaluation had the following objectives: i) provide an update on progress made towards the achievement of the output-, outcome- and impact-level results in DRF's logical framework; ii) identify DRF's contributions to results achieved and factors affecting performance; iii) make an overall assessment of DRF's value for money; and iv) provide DRF staff with a clear set of lessons learned to improve current interventions and guide future ones

The Nexus of Equality and Quality in Education: A Framework for Debate

Valverde (1988) claims that the general public and many educators believe it is extremely difficult if not impossible simultaneously to provide excellent education to majority youngsters and to provide equality of opportunity to ethnic and racial minority students. We explore the paradox these two major goals present, namely that schools should promote both equality and quality but cannot foster both goals at once. We argue that the apparent antithesis of equality and quality results from mutually exclusive definitions obscuring the true relationship between the two constructs. In place of these definitions, we offer a model demonstrating that equality and quality are not only compatible but mutually supportive and enhancing. Selon Valverde (1988), le public et de nombreux éducateurs estiment qu’il est très difficile, sinon impossible, d’offrir à la fois une excellente éducation à une majorité de jeunes et l’égalité des chances aux élèves des minorités ethniques ou raciales. Dans cet article, les auteurs analysent le paradoxe qui résulte de ces deux objectifs clés, paradoxe qui se formule comme suit: l’école devrait promouvoir l’égalité et la qualité, mais il lui serait impossible de réaliser les deux à la fois. Les auteurs avancent que l’opposition apparente entre l’égalité et la qualité résulte de définitions mutuellement exclusives qui embrouillent le lien véritable entre les deux visées éducatives. En place et lieu de ces définitions, les auteurs proposent un modèle démontrant que l’égalité et la qualité sont non seulement compatibles, mais complémentaires et mutuellement enrichissants.

Countering distrust in illicit online networks : the dispute resolution strategies of cybercriminals

The core of this paper is a detailed investigation of the dispute resolution system contained within Darkode, an elite cybercriminal forum. Extracting the dedicated disputes section from within the marketplace, where users can report bad behaviour and register complaints, we carry out content analysis on these threads. This involves both descriptive statistics across the dataset and qualitative analysis of particular posts of interest, leading to a number of new insights. First, the overall level of disputes is quite high, even though members are vetted for entry in the first instance. Second, the lower ranked members of the marketplace are the most highly represented category for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Third, vendors are accused of malfeasance far more often than buyers, and that their “crimes” are most commonly either not providing the product/service or providing a poor one. Fourth, the monetary size of the disputes is surprisingly small. Finally, only 23.1% of disputes reach a clear outcome

Entretien avec Charles Lusthaus

Version anglaise dans la biliothèque: In conversation : Charles Lusthau

In conversation : Charles Lusthaus

French version available in IDRC Digital Library: Entretien avec Charles Lusthau

Maximizing the Benefits of Self-Assessment: Tools and Tips

Smutylo, T. (IDRC) & Lusthaus, C. (Universalia

CRDI – redorer le blason de la recherche

Version anglaise disponible dans la Bibliothèque numérique du CRDI: Rebuilding prestige in research : organizational case study of Makerere University; capacity development for research - strategic evaluation (executive summary

Building research capacity one person at a time : IDRC and Makerere University; final case study report

This is the case study report on IDRC’s collaboration since 1996 with Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda. The evaluation focuses on the processes and results of IDRC support for the development of capacities of its southern partners – what, whose, and how, capacities have been enhanced and how effectively. The evaluation utilizes the concept of ‘loose coupling’ to describe a situation in which system elements (for example, parts of an organization) are responsive to each other, but at the same time retain evidence of separateness and identity. As the relationship between IDRC and Makerere is constituted by a set of individual relationships, so is IDRC’s work in research capacity building