How much is too much to ask of participants?
Asking too much of participants means asking for information that won't help answer an evaluation question: if it won't, don't ask for it. Every added survey or measure creates work for the people answering it, and for project staff and evaluators too.
Evaluation plans grow easily. Another survey gets added, then another measure, another group to ask, and data collection every semester. More data aren't necessarily better data. A focused plan makes intentional choices about what needs to be measured, when it needs to be measured, who needs to be asked, and what the project will do with the information. That protects participants' time, and it keeps survey fatigue from lowering the quality of the answers you do get.
When you're deciding which data a grant evaluation needs in the first place, What data do I actually need to collect for my grant evaluation? walks through it.
How do we keep participants' answers private?
To keep participants' answers private, explain what you're asking, why, and how the information will be used; keep it secure; and report results so no one can be identified. When consent is required, the federal rule lists what people must be told, including the purpose, how confidentiality of their records will be maintained, and that taking part is voluntary.
Keeping answers secure means deciding, before anything is collected, where the data will be stored and who on the team can see individual responses. Reporting so no one can be identified takes more than leaving names off. In a small program, a role, a site, or a quoted comment can be enough to point to one person, so check every table and quotation with that in mind.
Who asks the questions matters here too. An external evaluator asking questions and maintaining privacy removes the power dynamic between program staff and participants or professors and students. At Grantibly, your institution retains full ownership of all primary program data, and we maintain secure, encrypted copies strictly for evaluation analysis and synthesis.
What do we owe participants after they take part?
What you owe participants after they take part is follow-through: tell them what you learned and what's changing because of it. People who gave their time and their honest answers should hear what came of them. If something they raised can't change, say so and explain why.
Incentives, if offered, should be decided in accordance with IRB rules and ethics as well as funder allowances. Settle that before you invite anyone to take part, so what you promise matches what you're allowed to provide. When you're sharing results with a wider community, How do we share results with the community without breaking trust? looks at doing that well.
The Grantibly perspective
Angelika's perspective
We are sociologists first. We naturally think about individuals, groups, organizations, systems, context, relationships, and patterns. In an evaluation, that means paying attention to who is included, who is missing, who holds decision-making power, and what conditions affect results.
We believe evaluation should collect enough of the right data to answer the questions that matter. And one of the questions we want every project team to keep asking is a simple one: whose perspective are we missing?
