Official Report 443KB pdf
One would assume that the gathering will be included in the overall evaluation and will therefore be picked up in these terms of reference. However, we should perhaps ensure that that happens.
If members have no other comments, are we content with the proposals in the report?
The clerk and I will prepare a bid for funding from the conveners group for this external research.
I thought that it might have been implicit in the terms of reference, given that it is an evaluation of the project against these four key aims.
Our final item is our evaluation of Homecoming Scotland 2009. Do members have any comments on the terms of reference of the research that we have agreed to commission?
We seem to be relying on Lewis Macdonald’s partial views on the EKOS report. Surely until we have seen it we cannot decide whether it is misleading or whether its approach is suitable. We will most certainly want to look at it.
No. I am merely offering a suggestion. The point is to commission an evaluation that covers these matters.
I am not sure that that will form part of the external research but we can ask SPICe to take a look at the issue as part of its normal work. After all, the research is about the evaluation itself.
I note that the Scottish Government’s evaluation of homecoming is being carried out by EKOS, which also evaluated the gathering. Concerns have been expressed about that particular report, and doubt has been cast on the methodology used by the company and on its claims about the numbers that took part in the event and, therefore, on its economic benefits. Given that the gathering report raises more questions than it answers and given that the same agency is carrying out the wider evaluation, I am very keen that we examine the first report as well as the general homecoming Scotland report. After all, one would assume that it will be taken for granted that the gathering report is part of the overall report on homecoming and if the first is flawed, the flaw in the second will be deeper.
I am keen to make it explicit that the gathering report as well as the homecoming report will be subject to our examination. They are two different reports, although I agree that the second will include references to the first.
The report has been made public. I have seen it and am happy to let Rob Gibson have a copy of it.
The purpose of our research is to evaluate the evaluation. As our evaluation is meant to examine the impact of individual homecoming events, I would be very surprised if it did not include the gathering, which was one of the key events. However, we will make it explicit that our research should cover the gathering. Of course, in saying that, I am making no comment about whether or not the EKOS report is valid.
This might also be implicit in the terms of reference, but the Scottish Government’s evaluation of homecoming involves an assessment of the project’s success against four core aims. The other week I endeavoured, with the Scottish Parliament information centre’s assistance, to find out when and where these four core aims had been set, as I had not immediately recognised them as having been set out at the beginning of the project. Will the research that we are commissioning establish where those aims came from and when they were included in the project?
We can ensure that the information comes through the usual SPICe routes.
Previous
Budget Strategy 2011-12