Transferability of Lessons From Program Evaluations: Iron Laws, Hiding Hands and the Evidence Ecosystem.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-18 DOI:10.1177/0193841X241228332
Tom Ling
{"title":"Transferability of Lessons From Program Evaluations: Iron Laws, Hiding Hands and the Evidence Ecosystem.","authors":"Tom Ling","doi":"10.1177/0193841X241228332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessing the transferability of lessons from social research or evaluation continues to raise challenges. Efforts to identify transferable lessons can be based on two different forms of argumentation. The first draws upon statistics and causal inferences. The second involves constructing a reasoned case based on weighing up different data collected along the causal chain from designing to delivery. Both approaches benefit from designing research based upon existing evidence and ensuring that the descriptions of the programme, context, and intended beneficiaries are sufficiently rich. Identifying transferable lessons should not be thought of as a one-off event but involves contributing to the iterative and learning of a scientific community. To understand the circumstances under which findings can be confidently transferred, we need to understand: (1) How far and why outcomes of interest have multiple, interacting and fluctuating causes. (2) The program design and implementation capacity. (3) Prior knowledge and causal landscapes (and how far these are included in the theory of change). (4) New and relevant knowledge; what can we learn in our 'disputatious community of truth seekers'.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":" ","pages":"410-426"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X241228332","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing the transferability of lessons from social research or evaluation continues to raise challenges. Efforts to identify transferable lessons can be based on two different forms of argumentation. The first draws upon statistics and causal inferences. The second involves constructing a reasoned case based on weighing up different data collected along the causal chain from designing to delivery. Both approaches benefit from designing research based upon existing evidence and ensuring that the descriptions of the programme, context, and intended beneficiaries are sufficiently rich. Identifying transferable lessons should not be thought of as a one-off event but involves contributing to the iterative and learning of a scientific community. To understand the circumstances under which findings can be confidently transferred, we need to understand: (1) How far and why outcomes of interest have multiple, interacting and fluctuating causes. (2) The program design and implementation capacity. (3) Prior knowledge and causal landscapes (and how far these are included in the theory of change). (4) New and relevant knowledge; what can we learn in our 'disputatious community of truth seekers'.

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
计划评估经验的可借鉴性:铁律、藏匿之手和证据生态系统。
评估从社会研究或评估中汲取的经验教训的可借鉴性仍然是一项挑战。确定可借鉴经验的努力可以基于两种不同形式的论证。第一种是利用统计数据和因果推论。第二种是在权衡从设计到实施的因果链条上收集的不同数据的基础上,构建一个有理有据的案例。这两种方法都得益于以现有证据为基础设计研究,并确保对计划、背景和预期受益人的描述足够丰富。不应将确定可借鉴的经验教训视为一次性活动,而应促进科学界的反复学习。要了解在何种情况下可以有把握地转让研究结果,我们需要了解:(1) 在多大程度上以及为什么相关结果具有多重、相互作用和波动的原因。(2) 计划的设计和实施能力。(3) 先前的知识和因果关系(以及这些知识和因果关系在多大程度上包含在变革理论中)。(4) 新的相关知识;在我们这个 "寻求真理者的争议社区 "中,我们能学到什么。
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
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
期刊最新文献
Effects of Behaviour Change Communication on Knowledge and Prevention of Malaria Among Women in Ghana. When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality. Calibrating Items Using an Unfolding Model of Item Response Theory: The Case of the Trait Personality Questionnaire 5 (TPQue5). Cluster Randomized Trials Designed to Support Generalizable Inferences. Multistage Supply Chain Channel Principal-Agent Model in the Context of e-Commerce With Fairness Preference.
×
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