Documentary Impact Evaluation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

One model for measuring the impact of documentaries is presented in a 2014 paper by Diesner, Pak, Kim, Soltani, & Aleyasen [1]

Elements in the Model[edit | edit source]

  • Dimensions: Content, Medium, Target, Impact,
    • Level: multiple levels exist within each dimension, Diesner et. al defines this as a "set of sub-categories of evaluation criteria"
      • Evaluation Factors (what Diesner et. al call "Index") the set of evaluation factors in a given level.
      • Analytics = analytic methods that can be used for each evaluation factor
  • Items: sets of "specific features to be measured" within each evaluation factor.

Dimension 1: Content[edit | edit source]

Levels:[edit | edit source]

  1. Message = This can be identified by interviews with the film-maker, document analysis of governing and planning documents for the film, and analysis of the content of the film itself. Diesner et. al define a message as "the main message that a film wants to convey." Reflection questions: 1) Do you think that this definition is necessary and sufficient for the "Message" of a documentary? 2) What would you add or subtract from this definition? 3) Why?
  2. Expected Outcome = These can be found in the grant application, through interviews with the film-makers, etc.
  3. Evaluation Priority = Create a list of priorities based on the outcomes identified in the step above, and rank them in order of importance.
  4. Resource = The resources needed to produce the film. This level is necessary for any evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

Evaluation Factors:[edit | edit source]

  1. "Guiding Factor"

Analytics:[edit | edit source]

  1. Description
  2. Ranking
  3. Weighing

Items:[edit | edit source]

  1. Reports by producers (Diesner et al, 2014, Table 2, p.6)
  2. Reports by funding agencies (Diesner et al, 2014, Table 2, p.6)


Dimension 2: Medium[edit | edit source]

Levels:[edit | edit source]

Evaluation Factors:[edit | edit source]

Analytics:[edit | edit source]

Items:[edit | edit source]

Dimension 3: Target[edit | edit source]

Levels:[edit | edit source]

Evaluation Factors:[edit | edit source]

Analytics:[edit | edit source]

Items:[edit | edit source]

Dimension 4: Impact[edit | edit source]

Levels:[edit | edit source]

Level 1[edit | edit source]

  1. Individual
  2. Communal
  3. Societal
  4. Global

Diesner et al identify four categories of measurement that For each of these levels:

  1. Cognitive <- Evaluation factor "Awareness", analytical methods: "Statistics, Text mining, web analytics, network analysis", as well as surveys
  2. Attitudinal <- Evaluation Factor "Sentiment", analytical method: "Sentiment Analysis"
  3. Behavioral <- analytical methods: text mining, web analytics, network analysis, as well as observational protocols.
    1. Engagement <-
    2. Enactment
    3. Connectedness
    4. Capacity
    5. Expansiveness
    6. Centralization
  4. Temporal <- Evaluation factor: "Impact Dynamics", analytical method: "Longitudinal analysis"

Diesner et all call these the "four stimulous dimensions" (p. 8)

Evaluation Factors:[edit | edit source]

Analytics:[edit | edit source]

  1. Text Mining (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
  2. Web Analytics (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
  3. Network Analysis (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
  4. Longitudinal analysis (mentioned once, for Impact Dynamics)
  5. Sentiment Analysis (mentioned once, for Attitudinal level)

Applicable to Temporal categories:

  1. Longitudinal Analysis


Items:[edit | edit source]

  1. (Diesner, Pak, Kim, Soltani, & Aleyasen, 2014, Diesner, Jana, Susie Pak, Jinseok Kim, Kiumars Soltani, and Amirhossein Aleyasen. “Computational Assessment of the Impact of Social Justice Documentaries.” iConference 2014 Proceedings, 2014. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/47312.

[1]

  1. (Diesner, Pak, Kim, Soltani, & Aleyasen, 2014)