Documentary Impact Evaluation
Appearance
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
- Level: multiple levels exist within each dimension, Diesner et. al defines this as a "set of sub-categories of evaluation criteria"
- Items: sets of "specific features to be measured" within each evaluation factor.
Dimension 1: Content
[edit | edit source]Levels:
[edit | edit source]- 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?
- Expected Outcome = These can be found in the grant application, through interviews with the film-makers, etc.
- Evaluation Priority = Create a list of priorities based on the outcomes identified in the step above, and rank them in order of importance.
- Resource = The resources needed to produce the film. This level is necessary for any evaluation of cost-effectiveness.
Evaluation Factors:
[edit | edit source]- "Guiding Factor"
Analytics:
[edit | edit source]- Description
- Ranking
- Weighing
Items:
[edit | edit source]- Reports by producers (Diesner et al, 2014, Table 2, p.6)
- 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]- Individual
- Communal
- Societal
- Global
Diesner et al identify four categories of measurement that For each of these levels:
- Cognitive <- Evaluation factor "Awareness", analytical methods: "Statistics, Text mining, web analytics, network analysis", as well as surveys
- Attitudinal <- Evaluation Factor "Sentiment", analytical method: "Sentiment Analysis"
- Behavioral <- analytical methods: text mining, web analytics, network analysis, as well as observational protocols.
- Engagement <-
- Enactment
- Connectedness
- Capacity
- Expansiveness
- Centralization
- 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]- Text Mining (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
- Web Analytics (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
- Network Analysis (mentioned twice, for Behavioral and Cognitive levels)
- Longitudinal analysis (mentioned once, for Impact Dynamics)
- Sentiment Analysis (mentioned once, for Attitudinal level)
Applicable to Temporal categories:
- Longitudinal Analysis
Items:
[edit | edit source]- ↑ (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.
- ↑ (Diesner, Pak, Kim, Soltani, & Aleyasen, 2014)