什么在民主支持中有效?如何通过评估填补证据和可用性方面的空白

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1177/13563890231218276
Julia Leininger, Armin von Schiller
{"title":"什么在民主支持中有效?如何通过评估填补证据和可用性方面的空白","authors":"Julia Leininger, Armin von Schiller","doi":"10.1177/13563890231218276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.","PeriodicalId":47511,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation","volume":"57 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What works in democracy support? How to fill evidence and usability gaps through evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Julia Leininger, Armin von Schiller\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13563890231218276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"57 49\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890231218276\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890231218276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去几十年来,发展合作中产生和使用的证据发生了显著变化。而在民主支持领域,这些发展却不那么显著。常规化的、以证据为基础的计划还远未成为现实。与其他领域相比,干预的目标和假定的变革理论仍然不够明确。在这种情况下,评估和学习是困难的,因此,证据差距仍然很大,将证据转化为行动往往不成功。当这一领域在全球专制化趋势中重新受到关注时,这种情况尤为突出。在本文中,我们分析了民主支持在生成和使用证据方面面临的具体障碍和挑战。此外,我们还指出了证据方面的差距,并提出以影响为导向的伴随研究作为一种评估方法,可为推进该领域的证据议程做出重大贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What works in democracy support? How to fill evidence and usability gaps through evaluation
The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation
Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Using co-creation to address monitoring and evaluation challenges: The experience of South Africa’s evaluation hackathon What role should we play to be effective evaluators? – practitioner reflections Principles and methods to advance value for money Evaluating site selection at design in food systems interventions: A formative geospatial approach What works in democracy support? How to fill evidence and usability gaps through evaluation
×
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