书评:评价的研究议程

Q2 Social Sciences Evaluation Journal of Australasia Pub Date : 2023-02-06 DOI:10.1177/1035719X231155967
Kylie L. Kingston
{"title":"书评:评价的研究议程","authors":"Kylie L. Kingston","doi":"10.1177/1035719X231155967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As editor of A Research Agenda for Evaluation, Peter Dahler-Larsen boldly opens the book by critiquing distinctions of evaluation as a logical process, a semi-professional field, a socio-political practice, and as evaluation research. The discussion points to the necessity of a ‘skeptical turn’ (p. 4), shining a light on the modernist and rational assumptions underpinning much of evaluation practice. From within this contextual framing arises the critical agenda for the future of evaluation research and the purpose of the book, being ‘to offer a fresh perspective on a new research agenda for evaluation, while taking complications and reflexivities onboard’ (p. 4). Rather than presenting answers, a series of questions are provided to promote critical thinking and point toward areas of importance for this new research agenda. These areas include:","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"23 1","pages":"116 - 119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: A research agenda for evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Kylie L. Kingston\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719X231155967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As editor of A Research Agenda for Evaluation, Peter Dahler-Larsen boldly opens the book by critiquing distinctions of evaluation as a logical process, a semi-professional field, a socio-political practice, and as evaluation research. The discussion points to the necessity of a ‘skeptical turn’ (p. 4), shining a light on the modernist and rational assumptions underpinning much of evaluation practice. From within this contextual framing arises the critical agenda for the future of evaluation research and the purpose of the book, being ‘to offer a fresh perspective on a new research agenda for evaluation, while taking complications and reflexivities onboard’ (p. 4). Rather than presenting answers, a series of questions are provided to promote critical thinking and point toward areas of importance for this new research agenda. These areas include:\",\"PeriodicalId\":37231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"116 - 119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X231155967\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X231155967","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: 0

摘要

作为《评估研究议程》的编辑,彼得·达勒·拉森大胆地开启了这本书,他批评评估的区别是一个逻辑过程、一个半专业领域、一种社会政治实践和评估研究。讨论指出了“怀疑转向”的必要性(第4页),揭示了支撑大部分评估实践的现代主义和理性假设。从这个背景框架中产生了未来评估研究的关键议程和本书的目的,即“为评估的新研究议程提供新的视角,同时考虑复杂性和反思性”(第4页)。提供了一系列问题来促进批判性思维,并指出这一新研究议程的重要领域,而不是提供答案。这些领域包括:
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
Book Review: A research agenda for evaluation
As editor of A Research Agenda for Evaluation, Peter Dahler-Larsen boldly opens the book by critiquing distinctions of evaluation as a logical process, a semi-professional field, a socio-political practice, and as evaluation research. The discussion points to the necessity of a ‘skeptical turn’ (p. 4), shining a light on the modernist and rational assumptions underpinning much of evaluation practice. From within this contextual framing arises the critical agenda for the future of evaluation research and the purpose of the book, being ‘to offer a fresh perspective on a new research agenda for evaluation, while taking complications and reflexivities onboard’ (p. 4). Rather than presenting answers, a series of questions are provided to promote critical thinking and point toward areas of importance for this new research agenda. These areas include:
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 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