Why so many “rigorous” evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute

Bamberger, Michael; Tarsilla, Michele; Hesse‐Biber, Sharlene

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.01.001

Cited by 52 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with this traditional, evaluation methods have also been criticized by [42] since they only consider intended or expected outcomes and fail to detect outcomes or consequences that were not included in the logical framework or research hypothesis. In [42] risks are also identified when ignoring negative consequences that can affect the weak and vulnerable groups. Research programs thereby risk failing on equity objectives, allowing richer and more powerful groups to enjoy a disproportionate share of program benefits, while resulting in serious negative consequences for some groups-usually the poorest and most vulnerable [42].…”

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Basing the generation of knowledge only on success is, however, not the only way, and sometimes not even the most preferable one [42], [43]. In line with this traditional, evaluation methods have also been criticized by [42] since they only consider intended or expected outcomes and fail to detect outcomes or consequences that were not included in the logical framework or research hypothesis.…”

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [42] risks are also identified when ignoring negative consequences that can affect the weak and vulnerable groups. Research programs thereby risk failing on equity objectives, allowing richer and more powerful groups to enjoy a disproportionate share of program benefits, while resulting in serious negative consequences for some groups-usually the poorest and most vulnerable [42]. Current IS design science discourse for socio-technical design projects do not, however, encourage, or even guide, researchers to prevent their artifacts from triggering negative consequences for society [3].…”

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Re-Visiting IS Design Science Artifacts: Making a Case for Critical Realism

Uppström¹

2017

Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Considering Evaluation In Dsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Re-Visiting IS Design Science Artifacts: Making a Case for Critical Realism

Uppström¹

2017

Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is not always possible. Second, studies designed to capture the quantitative impact of an intervention on specific measures may not measure (and so not report) unintended consequences (Bamberger, Tarsilla, and Hess-Biber, 2016). A mixed-method study, which collects quantitative data on prespecified measures and exploratory qualitative data throughout implementation, is more likely to capture effects that were not necessarily part of the original logic model and effects that cannot be measured quantitatively.…”

Section: Choosing Among Evaluation Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

RAND School Leadership Intervention Evaluation Toolkit

Wrabel¹,

Herman²,

Gates³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/TL239Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

show abstract

Evaluation of the pivot to digital teaching and learning in pathology: Sentiments from a low‐middle‐income country

Michelow

Wet

Fainman

2022

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the pivot to digital teaching and learning in pathology: Sentiments from a low-middle-income countryIn late 2019, a new virally mediated disease termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appeared in China. By March 2020, a multitude of countries had reported cases of COVID-19, and the disease was declared a pandemic. Many countries rapidly instituted wide-ranging measures to reduce the spread of the disease, such as lockdowns, curfews, and quarantines. 1,2 According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 2020 (with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic), "governments should see higher education as integral to their economic and social recovery and higher education institutions should ensure continuity with equity." 3 Many educational organizations thus traded face-to-face teaching with remote online teaching in order to continue with the academic year (so-called emergency remote teaching). 4 Now that the COVID-19 pandemic has entered its third year and countries are beginning to live with the virus, many online learning activities have continued. The move to digital learning in many institutions of higher education already began some years ago before the pandemic. However, the pandemic fast-tracked this process, and within a few weeks to months, an immense change occurred in how teaching and learning transpired. [4][5][6] Although learning without the potential exposure to COVID-19 made for safer pedagogic environments, this pivot was not without its challenges. At a student level, the pivot to online learning led to technical challenges and highlighted inequities associated with access to appropriate devices and sufficient data. Other issues reported by students included a lack of appropriate learning spaces, difficulties with concentration, anxiety, and personal financial stressors, to name but a few. 4,6 Universities' academic staff-some with very little training, confidence, or support-had to adjust to an online environment. University management met with decreasing student enrollments, and some experienced reduced funding while contending with increased information technology (IT) costs. 5,6 Krishnamurthy 7 succinctly described this online pivot in higher education institutions as a "total disruption of business as usual."

show abstract

Why so many “rigorous” evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute

Cited by 52 publications

References 8 publications

Re-Visiting IS Design Science Artifacts: Making a Case for Critical Realism

Re-Visiting IS Design Science Artifacts: Making a Case for Critical Realism

RAND School Leadership Intervention Evaluation Toolkit

Evaluation of the pivot to digital teaching and learning in pathology: Sentiments from a low‐middle‐income country

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About