{"id":5762,"date":"2017-05-19T17:22:17","date_gmt":"2017-05-19T17:22:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.nnlm.gov\/neo\/?p=5762"},"modified":"2019-09-24T10:13:28","modified_gmt":"2019-09-24T17:13:28","slug":"the-good-news-about-bad-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.nnlm.gov\/nec\/2017\/05\/19\/the-good-news-about-bad-news\/","title":{"rendered":"The Good News about Bad News"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Broken<\/p>\n

Years ago, I conducted a campus climate assessment for a smallish university. Campus climate assessments are just an academic-fancy word for student satisfaction surveys. Our results were mostly\u00a0positive because, in general, our college students were a happy bunch.<\/p>\n

But, even in the Magic Kingdom of College, nothing is perfect.\u00a0 Ratings for the campus computer labs were less than stellar. Which statistic do you think the campus vice presidents wanted to talk about? \u00a0That\u2019s right: that darkish mark on their otherwise pristine record. Specifically, they wanted me to explain why<\/em> students were not completely satisfied with the computer labs.<\/p>\n

Of course, I had no idea.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t asked students to explain<\/em> their satisfaction levels.<\/p>\n

I learned an important lesson that day: No one has much to say about good news. Don\u2019t get me wrong: positive program metrics rock. They make great sound bites for elevator speeches. Thing is, you can say all that needs to be said in five floors or less.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, discussions about negative findings can’t be resolved in\u00a0a lift to the moon. Everyone wants to know why respondents aren\u2019t happy, don\u2019t learn, won\u2019t engage. Unfortunately, metrics are just facts. They have no meaning without context. If I\u2019m in a windowless office and my phone app tells me the outdoor temperature dropped 15 degrees in the last hour, I know almost nothing. \u00a0I need to tune into the Weather Channel\u00a0or, at least,\u00a0look out a window.<\/p>\n

Learning Opportunity Alert<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The good news is, a negative evaluation finding alerts you to a learning opportunity.\u00a0 However, you need to be prepared to capitalize on it. Your evaluation plan should include follow-up discussions with key informants, so you can understand your metrics. Preferably, you prepared to \u00a0talk with a mix of stakeholders. Customers or users<\/em> can explain the why<\/em> behind the findings and provide ideas for improvement. Service providers or program implementers <\/em>can tell you how they might\u00a0act on customer feedback. Key decision makers, such as\u00a0administrators or funders,<\/em> will express their level of concern for findings and provide feedback about their willingness to invest in improvements.<\/p>\n

Be Prepared<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If your resources or time is limited, the easiest way to get feedback is through key informant interviews.\u00a0 If you go this route, choose key findings to address and present them in a highly visual manner. You don’t want to use up valuable interview time forcing your interviewees to process your information. You can send them a more extensive report in advance, but don’t assume they will read it. Advanced reports should be “top shelf,” with distilled findings in bullet points.<\/p>\n

Ideally, you can convene discussion groups. You get more varied feedback and groups often generate more creative solutions\u00a0compared to sole interviewees. Plus, you provide more people with an opportunity to engage in your evaluation findings. However, you need careful plans and reliable assistants to systematically collect feedback from larger groups of people\u00a0 Here are some tips for multi-group evaluation discussions:<\/p>\n