Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation
Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation
复制标题
平淡还是深刻？
DOI：
10.1111/1759-5436.12117
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Williams
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Williams
所有评估方法都必须解决有关其合法性、有效性、相关性和有用性的问题。随着干预措施的复杂性得到更广泛的承认，影响评估似乎特别容易受到这些挑战的影响。本文探讨了系统领域解决这些漏洞的潜力。系统领域的概念是理解相互关系，参与多个观点，并反思在这些相互关系和观点方面绘制的边界。本文认为，在这三个元素之间取得平衡是至关重要的。强调相互关系可能只会给整个影响评价带来有限的（平淡的）好处。另一方面，对前景和边界的强烈强调可能导致影响评价的构思和交付方式发生深刻的变化。特别是，它可以改变评价者与关键利益相关者，特别是干预措施的资助者和管理者之间关系的性质。
All evaluation approaches have to address questions about their legitimacy, validity, relevance and usefulness. As the complexity of interventions is more widely acknowledged, impact evaluation appears to be especially vulnerable to these challenges. This article explores the potential of the systems field to address these vulnerabilities. The systems field is conceptualised as understanding interrelationships, engaging with multiple perspectives and reflecting on where boundaries are drawn in terms of those interrelationships and perspectives. This article argues that achieving a balance between these three elements is critical. An emphasis on interrelationships is likely to bring only limited (prosaic) benefits to impact evaluation as a whole. On the other hand, a strong emphasis on perspectives and boundaries could result in profound changes to the way in which impact evaluation is conceived and delivered. In particular, it could change the nature of the relationship between the evaluator and key stakeholders, especially funders and managers of interventions.