政策评估研究中使用哪些评估标准:跨领域文献综述

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102512
{"title":"政策评估研究中使用哪些评估标准:跨领域文献综述","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the use of evaluation criteria across five policy fields: social services, land-use planning, teaching in higher education, vocational education, and the environment. Though it is a key part of the evaluation process, the question of how criteria are defined, chosen, and applied generates surprisingly little debate among the evaluation community. In evaluation practice, criteria are often taken for granted – and occasionally even used in ways that are neither explicit nor transparent. This cross-field literature review shows a strong presence of routinized evaluation criteria (relating to the specifics of each policy field), while some new sets of higher-degree criteria also emerge in the face of social challenges relating to sustainability, public acceptance, or social justice. Criteria development draws on both inductive bottom-up processes (which can include policy stakeholders) and top-down deductive processes (which derive criteria from the literature, as well as from national and international standards). A more profound reflection on evaluation criteria (that is, the dimensions used by societies to assess the success of policy interventions) might be required in the future of evaluation research and planning; a deeper cross-field dialogue could support this endeavor.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102512\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the use of evaluation criteria across five policy fields: social services, land-use planning, teaching in higher education, vocational education, and the environment. Though it is a key part of the evaluation process, the question of how criteria are defined, chosen, and applied generates surprisingly little debate among the evaluation community. In evaluation practice, criteria are often taken for granted – and occasionally even used in ways that are neither explicit nor transparent. This cross-field literature review shows a strong presence of routinized evaluation criteria (relating to the specifics of each policy field), while some new sets of higher-degree criteria also emerge in the face of social challenges relating to sustainability, public acceptance, or social justice. Criteria development draws on both inductive bottom-up processes (which can include policy stakeholders) and top-down deductive processes (which derive criteria from the literature, as well as from national and international standards). A more profound reflection on evaluation criteria (that is, the dimensions used by societies to assess the success of policy interventions) might be required in the future of evaluation research and planning; a deeper cross-field dialogue could support this endeavor.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001149\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文献综述全面概述了社会服务、土地使用规划、高等教育教学、职业教育和环境这五个政策领域中评价标准的使用情况。尽管这是评估过程中的一个关键部分,但如何定义、选择和应用标准的问题在评估界引起的争论却少得令人吃惊。在评估实践中,标准往往被认为是理所当然的,有时甚至以既不明确也不透明的方式使用。这篇跨领域的文献综述显示,常规化的评估标准(与每个政策领域的具体情况有关)非常普遍,同时,面对与可持续性、公众接受度或社会公正有关的社会挑战,也出现了一些新的更高级别的标准。标准的制定既有自下而上的归纳过程(可包括政策利益相关者),也有自上而下的演绎 过程(从文献以及国家和国际标准中得出标准)。在未来的评估研究和规划中,可能需要对评估标准(即社会用来评估政策干预措施成 功与否的维度)进行更深入的思考;更深入的跨领域对话可以为这一努力提供支持。
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 evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review
This literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the use of evaluation criteria across five policy fields: social services, land-use planning, teaching in higher education, vocational education, and the environment. Though it is a key part of the evaluation process, the question of how criteria are defined, chosen, and applied generates surprisingly little debate among the evaluation community. In evaluation practice, criteria are often taken for granted – and occasionally even used in ways that are neither explicit nor transparent. This cross-field literature review shows a strong presence of routinized evaluation criteria (relating to the specifics of each policy field), while some new sets of higher-degree criteria also emerge in the face of social challenges relating to sustainability, public acceptance, or social justice. Criteria development draws on both inductive bottom-up processes (which can include policy stakeholders) and top-down deductive processes (which derive criteria from the literature, as well as from national and international standards). A more profound reflection on evaluation criteria (that is, the dimensions used by societies to assess the success of policy interventions) might be required in the future of evaluation research and planning; a deeper cross-field dialogue could support this endeavor.
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 and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory evaluation. How to incorporate an anticipatory technique into a theory-driven evaluation process. Results of application in a case study. What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review A program evaluation of the new choices workforce development program: An appreciative inquiry approach The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts A theoretical framework to companies value creation through a systematic review of intangibles’ management
×
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