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

Williams, Bob

doi:10.1111/1759-5436.12117

Cited by 37 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The broader evaluation literature also focuses on the inclusion of stakeholders as a values-based decision reflecting two dimensions-power and legitimacy (Mark & Shotland, 1985). Evaluators taking a systems-theory approach highlight the need to consider the implications of such decisions rather than take them for granted (Williams, 2014). Who ought to be involved in decision making, and whose expertise is valued or marginalised, are important "boundary choices" that have ethical, political, and practical implications (Williams, 2014).…”

Section: If An Overall Conclusion Is Made Who Should Make It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluators taking a systems-theory approach highlight the need to consider the implications of such decisions rather than take them for granted (Williams, 2014). Who ought to be involved in decision making, and whose expertise is valued or marginalised, are important "boundary choices" that have ethical, political, and practical implications (Williams, 2014).…”

Section: If An Overall Conclusion Is Made Who Should Make It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The overall evaluative conclusion as an element of evaluation practice

MacDonald¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The questions of who values, with whom, in what ways, and under what conditions concern all evaluators but are explicitly considered by some theorists more than others. Theorists placed on the valuing branch of Christie and Alkin’s (2013) evaluation theory tree emphasise valuing in their conceptualisation of evaluation, but even among these theorists there is diversity in the ways in which valuing is considered and realised in evaluation practice. This article explores this diversity within one aspect of valuing—the valuing involved in reaching a warranted conclusion about the overall merit, worth, or significance of an evaluand. It considers the extent to which the literature discusses overall evaluative conclusions as an element of evaluation practice; the extent to which drawing such conclusions is seen as the responsibility of the evaluator or stakeholders; and the methods that may be used to reach a warranted evaluative conclusion. The author concludes that there has been little empirical research undertaken on the valuing involved in reaching a warranted conclusion about the overall merit, worth, or significance of an evaluand. Much of the literature is evaluators theorising from different epistemological positions. Thus, while the literature does not definitively inform evaluators of whether they should always reach an overall evaluative conclusion, who they should involve, and what methods they should use, this review does support evaluators to reflect on these issues in their practice, and to make deliberate, informed decisions about the making—or not—of overall conclusions or judgements in future evaluations.

show abstract

Section: If An Overall Conclusion Is Made Who Should Make It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: If An Overall Conclusion Is Made Who Should Make It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The overall evaluative conclusion as an element of evaluation practice

MacDonald¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, unintended and unexpected patterns within a situation are often a consequence of unwillingness to identify and understand the range of relevant perspectives that stakeholders bring to an intervention. A single-perspective approach taken in impact evaluations is unfortunately common (Williams, 2015).…”

Section: More Holistic Approach Towards Evaluation Of Entrepreneurshimentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the entrepreneurship policy and programmes

Kubera

2018

ZN PP OiZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public policy to promote entrepreneurship can be of a two-fold nature. It can focus on lowering barriers or on providing direct support to entrepreneurs. Particularly in the latter case, there is a strong need for identifying the effects of policy outcomes. The paper explains the role of evaluation in the public policy cycle, reviews the methodological approaches to evaluation of SME and entrepreneurship policies and programmes in developed countries as well as discusses the challenges in entrepreneurship policy evaluation stemming from the move from narrowly defined outputs to more holistic evaluation frameworks. To this end, qualitative data analysis is performed to recognise practices of OECD countries in this field, identify good practices and enrich the ongoing debate about how to assess SME and entrepreneurship policies and programmes in a more comprehensive and holistic way drawing on the core concepts of systems thinking. the same time they are debated and critiqued for epistemological, methodological, practical and ethical reasons (Befani et al., 2015, p. 2).

show abstract

“…The concept of interrelationships is a familiar concept in impact evaluation [Williams, 2015], with its focus on causal attribution. SWITCH-Asia grant projects extensively use the methods of results chains and log frames to map the interrelationships between activities, outputs, results and impact both in the design of project activities and reporting to the European Commission (EC).…”

Section: Measuring Impact In Development Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%