Reclaiming Logic Modeling for Evaluation: A Theory of Action Framework

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
R. Woodland, Rebecca Mazur
{"title":"Reclaiming Logic Modeling for Evaluation: A Theory of Action Framework","authors":"R. Woodland, Rebecca Mazur","doi":"10.1177/10982140231224495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Logic modeling, the process that explicates how programs are constructed and theorized to bring about change, is considered to be standard evaluation practice. However, logic modeling is often experienced as a transactional, jargon-laden, discrete task undertaken to produce a document to comply with the expectations of an external entity, the consequences of which have minimal or even negative influence on the quality of program evaluation. This article presents the Logic Modeling Theory of Action Framework (LMTAF) which elucidates needs, resources, and central activities of logic modeling, and describes its potential evaluation-related benefits. The LMTAF situates evaluators as the primary intended users of logic modeling, and logic modeling as a fundamental element of each stage of a program evaluation life cycle. We aim to reassert the value of logic modeling for evaluation and provide evaluation practitioners a useful touchstone for reflective practice and future action.","PeriodicalId":51449,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140231224495","RegionNum":3,"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

Abstract

Logic modeling, the process that explicates how programs are constructed and theorized to bring about change, is considered to be standard evaluation practice. However, logic modeling is often experienced as a transactional, jargon-laden, discrete task undertaken to produce a document to comply with the expectations of an external entity, the consequences of which have minimal or even negative influence on the quality of program evaluation. This article presents the Logic Modeling Theory of Action Framework (LMTAF) which elucidates needs, resources, and central activities of logic modeling, and describes its potential evaluation-related benefits. The LMTAF situates evaluators as the primary intended users of logic modeling, and logic modeling as a fundamental element of each stage of a program evaluation life cycle. We aim to reassert the value of logic modeling for evaluation and provide evaluation practitioners a useful touchstone for reflective practice and future action.
重拾评估逻辑建模:行动理论框架
逻辑建模是阐述如何构建计划并将其理论化以实现变革的过程,被认为是标准的评 估实践。然而,逻辑建模往往被认为是一项事务性的、术语繁多的、离散的任务,其目的是编制一份文件以满足外部实体的期望,其后果对项目评估质量的影响微乎其微,甚至是负面的。本文介绍了逻辑建模行动理论框架(LMTAF),阐明了逻辑建模的需求、资源和核心活动,并描述了其潜在的评估相关益处。LMTAF 将评估人员定位为逻辑建模的主要预期用户,并将逻辑建模作为项目评估生命周期每个阶段的基本要素。我们旨在重申逻辑建模对评估的价值,并为评估从业人员提供一个反思实践和未来行动的有用试金石。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Evaluation (AJE) publishes original papers about the methods, theory, practice, and findings of evaluation. The general goal of AJE is to present the best work in and about evaluation, in order to improve the knowledge base and practice of its readers. Because the field of evaluation is diverse, with different intellectual traditions, approaches to practice, and domains of application, the papers published in AJE will reflect this diversity. Nevertheless, preference is given to papers that are likely to be of interest to a wide range of evaluators and that are written to be accessible to most readers.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信