Mechanisms for institutionalising evaluation: A scoping review

IF 2 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Carla Cordoncillo Acosta
{"title":"Mechanisms for institutionalising evaluation: A scoping review","authors":"Carla Cordoncillo Acosta","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent years, there has been growing attention garnered by the institutionalisation of evaluation, with academia as well as international organisations, governments and practitioners engaging more with the topic<em>.</em> Recent publications, in particular the books edited by Stockmann and Meyer (2020, 2022, 2023) that bring together various experiences occurring in different European, American and Asian countries, have contributed significantly to the conceptual and theoretical development of the field. However, the predominant analytical frameworks used to assess institutionalisation are primarily designed to support international comparisons and to quantify the degree of institutionalisation across countries. As such, they tend to emphasise measurable indicators or enabling conditions, often overlooking the specific mechanisms and institutional arrangements that underpin the development and sustainability of evaluative practices. This article addresses that gap by conducting a scoping review of 29 case studies from 12 countries with different evaluation traditions. Rather than focusing on levels of institutionalisation, the analysis identifies and categorises the institutional arrangements and mechanisms most frequently used to embed evaluation within public administration. In doing so, it offers a structured overview intended to support public sector managers—particularly in contexts with limited evaluation traditions—in reflecting on and designing appropriate strategies to strengthen evaluation systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"114 ","pages":"Article 102710"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","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/S0149718925001776","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

Abstract

In recent years, there has been growing attention garnered by the institutionalisation of evaluation, with academia as well as international organisations, governments and practitioners engaging more with the topic. Recent publications, in particular the books edited by Stockmann and Meyer (2020, 2022, 2023) that bring together various experiences occurring in different European, American and Asian countries, have contributed significantly to the conceptual and theoretical development of the field. However, the predominant analytical frameworks used to assess institutionalisation are primarily designed to support international comparisons and to quantify the degree of institutionalisation across countries. As such, they tend to emphasise measurable indicators or enabling conditions, often overlooking the specific mechanisms and institutional arrangements that underpin the development and sustainability of evaluative practices. This article addresses that gap by conducting a scoping review of 29 case studies from 12 countries with different evaluation traditions. Rather than focusing on levels of institutionalisation, the analysis identifies and categorises the institutional arrangements and mechanisms most frequently used to embed evaluation within public administration. In doing so, it offers a structured overview intended to support public sector managers—particularly in contexts with limited evaluation traditions—in reflecting on and designing appropriate strategies to strengthen evaluation systems.
使评价制度化的机制:范围审查。
近年来,评估的制度化引起了越来越多的关注,学术界、国际组织、政府和从业者越来越多地参与到这个话题中来。最近的出版物,特别是斯托克曼和迈耶(2020年,2022年,2023年)编辑的书籍,汇集了发生在不同欧洲,美洲和亚洲国家的各种经验,对该领域的概念和理论发展做出了重大贡献。然而,用于评估制度化的主要分析框架主要是为了支持国际比较和量化各国的制度化程度。因此,它们往往强调可衡量的指标或有利的条件,往往忽略了支撑评价做法的发展和可持续性的具体机制和体制安排。本文通过对具有不同评价传统的12个国家的29个案例研究进行范围审查,解决了这一差距。该分析不是侧重于制度化的水平,而是确定和分类最常用于将评价纳入公共行政的体制安排和机制。在此过程中,它提供了一个结构化的概述,旨在支持公共部门管理人员,特别是在评价传统有限的情况下,反思和设计适当的战略,以加强评价制度。
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
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信