The contribution of a ‘synergic theory of change’ approach to democratising evaluation

K. Laing
{"title":"The contribution of a ‘synergic theory of change’ approach to democratising evaluation","authors":"K. Laing","doi":"10.14324/rfa.06.1.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis paper focuses on an evaluation of three projects working with young people in innovative ways to tackle societal alcohol misuse. Rather than presenting the findings of the evaluation per se, the paper presents learning from using theory-based approaches in a collaborative way to evaluate these complex, multi-strand initiatives. Traditional evaluations conducted by academics without collaboration with stakeholders can fail to meet the needs of those delivering interventions. Drawing on interviews with practitioners involved in delivering the projects, the paper adds new evidence to epistemological debates by introducing the notion of a ‘synergic theory of change’, whereby academic expertise and the skills, knowledge and experiences of stakeholders are subject to dialogue, and a theory of change becomes the result of collaborative consensus building. This way of using theory of change in evaluation requires researchers to work in a spirit of co-production and dialogue, and it can move evaluation away from being an exercise that seeks to judge interventions and, by extension, practitioners, to one which prioritises a shared learning journey. Using a synergic theory of change approach has the potential to change the nature of evaluation and lead to a different kind of relationship between researchers and practitioners than traditional methods-based approaches allow.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.06.1.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper focuses on an evaluation of three projects working with young people in innovative ways to tackle societal alcohol misuse. Rather than presenting the findings of the evaluation per se, the paper presents learning from using theory-based approaches in a collaborative way to evaluate these complex, multi-strand initiatives. Traditional evaluations conducted by academics without collaboration with stakeholders can fail to meet the needs of those delivering interventions. Drawing on interviews with practitioners involved in delivering the projects, the paper adds new evidence to epistemological debates by introducing the notion of a ‘synergic theory of change’, whereby academic expertise and the skills, knowledge and experiences of stakeholders are subject to dialogue, and a theory of change becomes the result of collaborative consensus building. This way of using theory of change in evaluation requires researchers to work in a spirit of co-production and dialogue, and it can move evaluation away from being an exercise that seeks to judge interventions and, by extension, practitioners, to one which prioritises a shared learning journey. Using a synergic theory of change approach has the potential to change the nature of evaluation and lead to a different kind of relationship between researchers and practitioners than traditional methods-based approaches allow.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“协同变革理论”方法对民主化评价的贡献
本文的重点是对三个项目的评估,这些项目以创新的方式与年轻人一起解决社会酒精滥用问题。本文并没有展示评估本身的发现,而是展示了如何以协作的方式使用基于理论的方法来评估这些复杂的、多链的计划。由学术界在没有与利益攸关方合作的情况下进行的传统评估可能无法满足提供干预措施的人的需求。通过对参与交付项目的实践者的采访,本文通过引入“变革的协同理论”的概念,为认识论辩论增添了新的证据,即学术专业知识和利益相关者的技能、知识和经验都受到对话的影响,变革理论成为协作共识建立的结果。这种在评估中使用变化理论的方式要求研究人员本着合作生产和对话的精神工作,它可以使评估从一种寻求判断干预措施的工作,进而使实践者,转变为一种优先考虑共享学习之旅的工作。使用协同变革理论方法有可能改变评估的性质,并导致研究人员和实践者之间的一种不同的关系,而不是传统的基于方法的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Stakeholder-engaged research: a multidisciplinary historical analysis A co-design exemplar: how to align with community goals when developing data collection methods with communities from refugee backgrounds Delivering citizen science online and hybrid: impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on recruitment and engagement Virtual Maths Circles: helping young people to think like researchers Virtual Maths Circles: helping young people to think like researchers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1