利益相关者参与评估:是否会影响观察者对评估的看法?人们认为哪些利益相关者团体应该参与?

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2021-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-24 DOI:10.1177/0193841X211055937
Melvin M Mark, Julian B Allen, Joshuah L Goodwin
{"title":"利益相关者参与评估:是否会影响观察者对评估的看法?人们认为哪些利益相关者团体应该参与?","authors":"Melvin M Mark,&nbsp;Julian B Allen,&nbsp;Joshuah L Goodwin","doi":"10.1177/0193841X211055937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stakeholders are often involved in evaluation, such as in the selection of specific research questions and the interpretation of results. Except for the topic of whether stakeholder involvement increases use, a paucity of research exists to guide practice regarding stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We address two questions: (1) If a third-party observer knows stakeholders were involved in an evaluation, does that affect the perceived credibility, fairness, and relevance of the evaluation? (2) Among individuals with a possible stake in an evaluation, which stakeholder group(s) do they want to see participate; in particular, do they prefer that multiple stakeholder groups, rather than a single group, participate?</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>Six studies are reported. All studies address the former question, while Studies 3 to 5 also focus on the latter question. To study effects of stakeholder involvement on third-party views, participants read summaries of ostensible evaluations, with stakeholder involvement noted or not. To examine a priori preferences among potential stakeholders, participants completed a survey about alternative stakeholder group involvement in an evaluation in which they would likely have an interest.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>Across studies, effects of reported stakeholder participation on third-parties' views were not robust; however, small effects on perceived fairness sometimes, but not always, occurred after stakeholder involvement and its rationales had been made salient. All surveys showed a large preference for the involvement of multiple, rather than single stakeholder groups. We discuss implications for research and practice regarding stakeholder involvement, and for research on evaluation more generally.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":"45 3-4","pages":"166-190"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder Involvement in Evaluation: Does it Affect Observers' Perceptions of an Evaluation? And Which Stakeholder Group(s) Do People Think Should to Participate?\",\"authors\":\"Melvin M Mark,&nbsp;Julian B Allen,&nbsp;Joshuah L Goodwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0193841X211055937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stakeholders are often involved in evaluation, such as in the selection of specific research questions and the interpretation of results. Except for the topic of whether stakeholder involvement increases use, a paucity of research exists to guide practice regarding stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We address two questions: (1) If a third-party observer knows stakeholders were involved in an evaluation, does that affect the perceived credibility, fairness, and relevance of the evaluation? (2) Among individuals with a possible stake in an evaluation, which stakeholder group(s) do they want to see participate; in particular, do they prefer that multiple stakeholder groups, rather than a single group, participate?</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>Six studies are reported. All studies address the former question, while Studies 3 to 5 also focus on the latter question. To study effects of stakeholder involvement on third-party views, participants read summaries of ostensible evaluations, with stakeholder involvement noted or not. To examine a priori preferences among potential stakeholders, participants completed a survey about alternative stakeholder group involvement in an evaluation in which they would likely have an interest.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>Across studies, effects of reported stakeholder participation on third-parties' views were not robust; however, small effects on perceived fairness sometimes, but not always, occurred after stakeholder involvement and its rationales had been made salient. All surveys showed a large preference for the involvement of multiple, rather than single stakeholder groups. We discuss implications for research and practice regarding stakeholder involvement, and for research on evaluation more generally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"volume\":\"45 3-4\",\"pages\":\"166-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X211055937\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X211055937","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:利益相关者经常参与评估,如在具体研究问题的选择和结果的解释。除了利益相关者的参与是否会增加使用这一主题外,缺乏关于利益相关者的研究来指导实践。目标:我们解决了两个问题:(1)如果第三方观察者知道利益相关者参与了评估,这会影响评估的可信度、公平性和相关性吗?(2)在可能参与评估的个人中,他们希望看到哪些利益相关者群体参与;特别是,他们是否更喜欢多个利益相关者群体,而不是单一群体的参与?研究设计:共报道6项研究。所有的研究都解决了前一个问题,而研究3到5也关注了后一个问题。为了研究利益相关者参与对第三方观点的影响,参与者阅读了表面评价的摘要,是否注意到利益相关者的参与。为了检查潜在利益相关者的先验偏好,参与者完成了一项关于他们可能感兴趣的评估中替代利益相关者群体参与的调查。结果和结论:在所有研究中,报告的利益相关者参与对第三方观点的影响并不稳健;然而,在利益相关者参与及其基本原理变得突出之后,有时(但并非总是)会对感知到的公平产生小的影响。所有的调查都表明,人们更倾向于让多个利益相关者群体参与,而不是单一利益相关者群体参与。我们讨论了有关利益相关者参与的研究和实践的含义,以及更普遍的评估研究。
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
Stakeholder Involvement in Evaluation: Does it Affect Observers' Perceptions of an Evaluation? And Which Stakeholder Group(s) Do People Think Should to Participate?

Background: Stakeholders are often involved in evaluation, such as in the selection of specific research questions and the interpretation of results. Except for the topic of whether stakeholder involvement increases use, a paucity of research exists to guide practice regarding stakeholders.

Objectives: We address two questions: (1) If a third-party observer knows stakeholders were involved in an evaluation, does that affect the perceived credibility, fairness, and relevance of the evaluation? (2) Among individuals with a possible stake in an evaluation, which stakeholder group(s) do they want to see participate; in particular, do they prefer that multiple stakeholder groups, rather than a single group, participate?

Research design: Six studies are reported. All studies address the former question, while Studies 3 to 5 also focus on the latter question. To study effects of stakeholder involvement on third-party views, participants read summaries of ostensible evaluations, with stakeholder involvement noted or not. To examine a priori preferences among potential stakeholders, participants completed a survey about alternative stakeholder group involvement in an evaluation in which they would likely have an interest.

Results and conclusions: Across studies, effects of reported stakeholder participation on third-parties' views were not robust; however, small effects on perceived fairness sometimes, but not always, occurred after stakeholder involvement and its rationales had been made salient. All surveys showed a large preference for the involvement of multiple, rather than single stakeholder groups. We discuss implications for research and practice regarding stakeholder involvement, and for research on evaluation more generally.

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 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