Working with assumptions in international development program evaluation

Q2 Social Sciences Evaluation Journal of Australasia Pub Date : 2021-07-22 DOI:10.1177/1035719X211033717
Scott Bayley
{"title":"Working with assumptions in international development program evaluation","authors":"Scott Bayley","doi":"10.1177/1035719X211033717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All international development policies and programs are fuelled by a complex network of implicit ideas. Stakeholders may hold assumptions about program purposes, theories of change, outcomes, and the value of program evaluation—which may or may not be shared by the evaluators. A major barrier to viable evaluations is that development programs are often based on assumptions that are not well articulated. This lack of clarity masks critical risks to program success and also makes it challenging to evaluate such programs. Most of the evaluation methods that have attempted to address this dilemma have been popularised as ‘theory driven’ approaches. These approaches elaborate the sequence of changes/mini steps that lead to the long-term goal of interest and the connections between program activities and outcomes that occur at each step of the way. Unfortunately, they do not do enough to clarify how program managers or evaluators should deal with tacit assumptions. This book seeks to address this gap by discussing the crucial role that assumptions play in conceptualising, implementing, and evaluating development programs. It aims to offers practical ways for stakeholders and evaluators to 1) examine their assumptions about program theory and environmental conditions and 2) develop and carry out effective program monitoring and evaluation given those assumptions. Unfortunately, in the opinion of this reviewer, this book fails to deliver on its intended purpose.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"21 1","pages":"231 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X211033717","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X211033717","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

All international development policies and programs are fuelled by a complex network of implicit ideas. Stakeholders may hold assumptions about program purposes, theories of change, outcomes, and the value of program evaluation—which may or may not be shared by the evaluators. A major barrier to viable evaluations is that development programs are often based on assumptions that are not well articulated. This lack of clarity masks critical risks to program success and also makes it challenging to evaluate such programs. Most of the evaluation methods that have attempted to address this dilemma have been popularised as ‘theory driven’ approaches. These approaches elaborate the sequence of changes/mini steps that lead to the long-term goal of interest and the connections between program activities and outcomes that occur at each step of the way. Unfortunately, they do not do enough to clarify how program managers or evaluators should deal with tacit assumptions. This book seeks to address this gap by discussing the crucial role that assumptions play in conceptualising, implementing, and evaluating development programs. It aims to offers practical ways for stakeholders and evaluators to 1) examine their assumptions about program theory and environmental conditions and 2) develop and carry out effective program monitoring and evaluation given those assumptions. Unfortunately, in the opinion of this reviewer, this book fails to deliver on its intended purpose.
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
在国际发展计划评估中使用假设
所有的国际发展政策和计划都是由一个隐含思想的复杂网络推动的。涉众可能持有关于项目目的、变化理论、结果和项目评估价值的假设——评估者可能共享,也可能不共享。可行性评估的一个主要障碍是,发展计划往往建立在没有很好阐述的假设基础上。缺乏明确性掩盖了项目成功的关键风险,也使得评估这些项目具有挑战性。大多数试图解决这一困境的评估方法都被称为“理论驱动”的方法。这些方法详细阐述了导致长期目标的变化/小步骤的顺序,以及在每个步骤中发生的项目活动和结果之间的联系。不幸的是,他们没有做足够的工作来阐明项目经理或评估人员应该如何处理默示的假设。本书试图通过讨论假设在概念化、实施和评估发展计划中所起的关键作用来解决这一差距。它旨在为利益相关者和评估者提供实用的方法,以1)检查他们对项目理论和环境条件的假设,2)根据这些假设制定和实施有效的项目监测和评估。不幸的是,在这个评论家看来,这本书没有达到预期的目的。
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 Journal of Australasia
Evaluation Journal of Australasia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Utilising existing data for a pilot social return on investment analysis of the family wellbeing empowerment program: A justification and framework Evaluation at the cutting edge: Driving innovation and quality The best medicine: Lessons from health for policy randomistas Evaluator perspective: Meet an Australian Evaluation Society Fellow – Nan Wehipeihana Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs)
×
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