Given Hapunda

103 to describe some attribute or characteristics of the target population members, for example, their attitudes towards public service announcements, their attendance at programme sessions, or their willingness to meet with programme personnel. Descriptive designs might also include some analytic comparisons within the target population. Such comparisons might be made among specific subsets of participants, for example, do female participants prefer a different announcement than male participants? Do older participants attend more frequently than younger participants? Exploratory Evaluation Designs Exploratory evaluation study designs can help you at the beginning of your programme to identify what services to provide and the best approaches to providing those services. It can also help you determine what outcomes will be appropriate for you to measure, given the type of services you offer, and the best way to measure them (Project STAR, 2006). The Exploratory design is used to look at aspects of the initiative that appear disorderly, unorganised, or not well understood. Such areas are unpatterned, surprising, and unpredictable. They may exist before the initiative starts or may be created intentionally or unintentionally during the initiative. The exploratory evaluation is designed to see what insights can be gained about the areas where the complexity of the initiative is not yet articulated. Results from this design are likely to enrich the theory of change (Kellogg Foundation, 2007). Conclusion In conclusion, this chapter has discussed the various types of evaluation designs and how to use them appropriately. Evaluation designs are grouped into three main categories; experimental designs, quasi experimental designs and non-experimental designs. Experimental designs are used when answering Focus Box 14: Exploratory Evaluation Design An exploratory evaluation was conducted by Gagliardi & Wright (2010) with the aim of evaluating a skills mentorship program as well as exploring the outcomes and barriers associated with it. Data was collected through interviews and surveys from the organisers, mentors and protégés of the two programmes. Interviews were conducted with 23 participants while surveys were administered to 23 non-participants. The results revealed greater participation in the program where planning was participatory and mentors visited protégés. Additionally, mentorship was appreciated in knowledge exchange, hands-on learning and real-time feedback. Also, mentorship led to realisation of gaps in skills which in turn led to continued mentorship. However, the non- participants reported lack of interest in skill as they claimed they were already trained. Therefore it was concluded that mentorship was associated with a number of beneficial outcomes. More so, it was suggested that mentorship be paired with technical training in order to have favourable results.