About the evaluation repository
Frequently Asked Questions:
Q1. What is the purpose of the evaluation repository?Q2. What is 'evaluation'?
Q3. What is the difference between this repository and SHURA?
Q4. How do I conduct searches?
Q5. What are the types of evaluation evidence'?
Q6. What evaluation items are accepted?
Q7. Who can submit items to the evaluation repository?
Q8. Why would I submit to the evaluation repository?
Q9. How do I submit items?
Q10. Can items submitted to the repository be taken down?
Q11. How can I find out the meaning of some of the key terms used throughout the repository?
Q12. Are there any statistics available about the use of the evaluation repository?
Q1. What is the purpose of the evaluation repository?
Sheffield Hallam's Evaluation Repository shares the findings and learning from evaluations of interventions that are carried out by staff members and students within the University and at partnership organisations. The evaluation repository communicates unpublished evaluative items, such as reports, to raise awareness of practices and ideas that users can apply when designing and planning their own interventions and evaluations. The evaluation repository is particularly focused on interventions that aim to enhance some element of the student lifecycle (access, success and progression).
Providers of higher education are “expected to engage routinely with the latest research and evaluation evidence available to contribute to refinement, and where necessary, review of its own activity” (Office for Students). Sheffield Hallam has committed to developing the repository within its Access and Participation Plan 2020-24 as part of its goal to embed an evaluative mindset and promote a culture of evidence-led practice.
Q2. What is 'evaluation'?
There are many different definitions of evaluation that are available. Patton describes evaluation as involving 'making judgements about the merit, value, significance, credibility, and utility of whatever is being evaluated: for example, a program, a policy, a product, or the performance of a person or team'. To learn more about evaluation in higher education, please watch the following video:
Q3. What is the difference between this evaluation repository and SHURA?
The focus of the evaluation repository is on showcasing unpublished evaluation items and should not be mistaken for SHURA, which is the open access repository containing research outputs and publications of researchers at the University
Q4. How do I conduct searches?
The basic search functionality enables users to enter one or more search terms in a single text box. Advanced search functionality allows users to enter terms in multiple text boxes, such as title, authors, type of evidence, stage of the student lifecycle and key words. Learn more about conducting searches on the evaluation repository.
Q5. What are the 'types of evaluation evidence'?
The ‘types of evaluation evidence’ refers to the design of an evaluation and the claims that can be made from the findings of an evaluation. Three of these are aligned to the types of evaluation (narrative, empirical and causal) used by the Office for Students which generate different types of evidence. An additional type, exploratory, was added to reflect evidence that could be used to inform the design of an intervention. The overview of each type of evidence is based on guidance provided by the Centre for Social Mobility:
Exploratory: Evidence of a specific topic that could be used to design an intervention.
Narrative: A type of evaluation that seeks to provide a ‘plausible rationale for why you are doing what you are doing’, which is deemed to be the minimum requirement for all interventions. It is anticipated that the evaluation will refer to existing evidence of impact, literature or practitioner reflections.
Empirical: A type of evaluation that seeks to collect data on impact and report evidence about changes in outcomes for those receiving an intervention, though does not establish any direct causal effect. For this evaluation, quantitative and/or qualitative evidence will need to be collected.
Causal: A type of evaluation that seeks to provide evidence of a causal effect of an intervention (i.e. that the impact can be directly attributed to the intervention) through the use of a control or comparison group.
Q6. What evaluation items are accepted?
There are no restrictions on the types of evaluation outputs that are accepted for the repository, so it could be an evaluation report, a briefing, a presentation or something else. However, there is a need for the evaluation to be communicated in a way that is credible and clear for audiences so that they can assess the evidence and determine whether it can inform their own practice. Each submission also needs to demonstrate that it meets a set of expectations relating to evaluation practices and reporting, which are in place to ensure that the evidence base on the repository is relatively robust. Learn more about these expectations in this document.
Q7. Who can submit items to the evaluation repository?
Any current member of staff working at Sheffield Hallam University or a partnership organisation (e.g. Sheffield Hallam Students’ Union, HeppSY, Hepp) can submit items. Items can be submitted that have been written or worked on collaboratively with other people.
Q8. Why would I submit to the evaluation repository?
Evaluators can have an active role in maximising the use of findings by helping others to understand the evidence and its implications. Submitting evaluation items to this repository will help others at Sheffield Hallam and across the sector to use the learning for their own practice. It also provides an opportunity for authors to gain greater recognition and visibility for their work. It is important to note that uploading unpublished items into the repository may limit your opportunities to publish elsewhere.
Q9. How do I submit items?
Please refer to the designated page to find out about the steps that you need to follow and to learn more about the submission process.
Q10. Can items submitted to the repository be taken down?
If we are notified of a potential breach of copyright, or receive a plausible complaint indicating a violation of publishers' rules or any law (including but not limited to laws on copyright, patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation or libel) the item involved will be withdrawn as quickly as possible pending further investigation. If you wish to submit a request for an item to be removed, please send an email to evaluationrepository@shu.ac.uk and provide the following information:
• your contact details
• full details of the resource e.g. author, title, URL
• the nature of your concern
• if you are notifying us about a breach of your own copyright please state that you are the rights holder or are authorised to act on their behalf
We will acknowledge receipt of your email. The resource will be temporarily removed pending investigation and we will notify you of the outcome of the investigation.
Q11. How can I find out the meaning of some of the key terms used throughout the repository?
Please visit the ‘Glossary’ page to learn more about the key terms and concepts used throughout the repository.
Q12. Are there any statistics available about the use of the evaluation repository?
Statistics are generated on the number of downloads of each item. Filters can also be applied to generate figures for specific authors and for particular time