Evaluation Criteria for Evaluating Transformation: Implications for the Coronavirus Pandemic and the Global Climate Emergency

Patton, Michael Quinn

doi:10.1177/1098214020933689

Cited by 42 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is our hope that methodological discussions such as this can help to elucidate pathways forward for MEL that recognize and centre experiential knowledge, integrate understandings of the local context, accommodate adaptation and realistically grapple with the politics and power relations that are inherent in the process. In other words, we hope that this article makes some contribution to the proliferating questions of how we change prevailing evaluation practice (Patton, 2021;Tyrrel et al, 2020). As Justin Parkhurst (2017) has noted, once we factor in politics and power, it becomes clear that one of the central issues we need to address is the governance of evidence generation and (mis-) use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The probative value of evidence should be appraised in a contextually sensitive way (House, 1980;Lincoln and Guba, 1985;Scriven, 2008). • • Responsiveness: If programming aims to be locally led, then questions, methods and analyses should reflect local stakeholders' values and cultural context and be sensitive to their experiences and definitions of success, and evaluation criteria (Chambers, 2015;Patton, 2021;Stake, 2004). • • Utilization: If adaptation is key, then the quality of the learning process, actionable evidence and related utilization of evaluation findings are fundamental (Bamberger and Rugh, 2008;Julnes and Rog, 2009;Patton, 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the challenges of monitoring and evaluating politically informed and adaptive programmes in the international development field. We assess the strengths and weaknesses of some specific evaluation methodologies which have been suggested as particularly appropriate for these kinds of programmes based on scholarly literature and the practical experience of the authors in using them. We suggest that those methods which assume generative causality are particularly well suited to the task. We also conclude that factoring in the politics of uncertainty and evidence generation and use is particularly important in order to recognize and value diverse experiential knowledge, integrate understandings of the local context, accommodate adaptation and realistically grapple with the power relations which are inherent in evaluation processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the implementation of the EGD, the question will ultimately be whether policy monitoring ends up as a "paper tiger" (Niederberger & Kimble, 2011) or whether it becomes one of the crucial institutional conditions that help accelerate and steer the much-needed low-carbon transition (Roberts et al, 2018). As Patton (2021) argues, "the greatest danger for evaluators in times of turbulence is not the turbulenceit is to act with yesterday's criteria." Without a better understanding of policy monitoring practices and their effects, scholars and practitioners may well discover that the devil of governing in turbulent governance environments emerges through the details of monitoring.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Green Deal: What Prospects for Governing Climate Change With Policy Monitoring?

Schoenefeld

2021

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Green Deal (EGD) puts forward and engages with review mechanisms, such as the European Semester and policy monitoring, to ensure progress towards the long-term climate targets in a turbulent policy environment. Soft-governance mechanisms through policy monitoring have been long in the making, but their design, effects, and politics remain surprisingly under-researched. While some scholars have stressed their importance to climate governance, others have highlighted the difficulties in implementing robust policy monitoring systems, suggesting that they are neither self-implementing nor apolitical. This article advances knowledge on climate policy monitoring in the EU by proposing a new analytical framework to better understand past, present, and potential future policy monitoring efforts, especially in the context of the EGD. Drawing on Lasswell (1965), it unpacks the politics of policy monitoring by analysing who monitors, what, why, when, and with what effect(s). The article discusses each element of the framework with a view to three key climate policy monitoring efforts in the EU which are particularly relevant for the EGD, namely those emerging from the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (now included in the Energy Union Governance Regulation), as well as related processes for illustration. Doing so reveals that the policy monitoring regimes were set up differently in each case, that definitions of the subject of monitoring (i.e., public policies) either differ or remain elusive, and that the corresponding political and policy impact of monitoring varies. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for governing climate change by means of monitoring through the emerging EGD.

show abstract

“…The complexity of physical and socio-economic factors influencing climate risks and the uncertain timing of climate hazards make adaptation interventions particularly challenging to evaluate (Bours et al, 2014). Viewing adaptation as a transformational change process requires new evaluation criteria and principles (Brousselle & McDavid, 2020b; Patton, 2021). Evaluators need to pay attention to unintended consequences (maladaptation), to aspects of equity and inclusion, and need to develop a deeper appreciation of the critical interactions between human and natural systems (Schipper, 2020; Uitto, 2019).…”

Section: A Make or Break Moment For Climate Change Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What should evaluation learn from COP 26? Views of evaluation practitioners

Berg¹,

Bours²,

Brousselle³

et al. 2022

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leading evaluation practitioners were asked about lessons from the recent 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) for evaluation practice. Contributors emphasize the importance of evaluating equity between rich and poor countries and other forms of climate injustice. The role of the evaluation is questioned: what can evaluation be expected to do on its own and what requires collaboration across disciplines, professions and civil society – and across generations? Contributors discuss the implications of the post-Glasgow climate ‘pact’ for the continued relevance of evaluation. Should evaluators advocate for the marginalized and become activists on behalf of sustainability and climate justice – as well as advocates of evidence? Accountability-driven and evidence-based evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of investments in adaptation and mitigation. Causal pathways in different settings and ‘theories of no-change’ are needed to understand gaps between stakeholder promises and delivery. Evaluators should measure unintended consequences and what is often left unmeasured, and be sensitive to failure and unanticipated effects of funded actions. Evaluation timescales and units of analysis beyond particular programmes are needed to evaluate the complexities of climate change, sustainability and to take account of natural systems. The implications for evaluation commissioning and funding are discussed as well as the role of evaluation in programme-design and implementation.

show abstract

Evaluation Criteria for Evaluating Transformation: Implications for the Coronavirus Pandemic and the Global Climate Emergency

Cited by 42 publications

References 38 publications

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

The European Green Deal: What Prospects for Governing Climate Change With Policy Monitoring?

What should evaluation learn from COP 26? Views of evaluation practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About