首页> 外文OA文献 >Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation
【2h】

Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation

机译:平淡或深刻?影响评估采用系统思想

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

All evaluation approaches have to address questions about their legitimacy, validity, relevance and usefulness. As the complexity of interventions is more widely acknowledged, impact evaluation appears to be especially vulnerable to these challenges. This article explores the potential of the systems field to address these vulnerabilities. The systems field is conceptualised as understanding interrelationships, engaging with multiple perspectives and reflecting on where boundaries are drawn in terms of those interrelationships and perspectives. This article argues that achieving a balance between these three elements is critical. An emphasis on interrelationships is likely to bring only limited (prosaic) benefits to impact evaluation as a whole. On the other hand, a strong emphasis on perspectives and boundaries could result in profound changes to the way in which impact evaluation is conceived and delivered. In particular, it could change the nature of the relationship between the evaluator and key stakeholders, especially funders and managers of interventions.
机译:所有评估方法都必须解决有关其合法性,有效性,相关性和有用性的问题。随着干预措施的复杂性得到广泛认可,影响评估似乎尤其容易受到这些挑战的影响。本文探讨了系统领域解决这些漏洞的潜力。系统领域被概念化为理解相互关系,参与多种观点并思考根据这些相互关系和观点在何处划定边界。本文认为,在这三个要素之间取得平衡至关重要。强调相互关系可能只会给整体影响评估带来有限(平淡)的收益。另一方面,过分强调观点和界限可能会导致影响评估的构思和交付方式发生深刻变化。特别是,它可能会改变评估者与主要利益相关者之间关系的性质,尤其是干预的出资者和管理者。

著录项

  • 作者

    Williams, Bob;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号