Evaluating Outside the Box: An Alternative Framework for Analysing Social Protection Programmes

Stephen Devereux, Keetie Roelen, Christophe Béné, Deepta Chopra, Jennifer Leavy, J. Allister McGregor
{"title":"Evaluating Outside the Box: An Alternative Framework for Analysing Social Protection Programmes","authors":"Stephen Devereux,&nbsp;Keetie Roelen,&nbsp;Christophe Béné,&nbsp;Deepta Chopra,&nbsp;Jennifer Leavy,&nbsp;J. Allister McGregor","doi":"10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00431.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The evidence base on social protection programmes is expanding rapidly, largely pointing towards their positive impacts. Most evaluations rely heavily on quantitative techniques and experimental methods to allow for attribution of impacts. In this paper, we argue that new ways of investigation and analysis are needed to expand and deepen the evidence base in support of improved design and implementation of social protection. Greater emphasis on qualitative research, mixed methods and participatory evaluation is crucial, given current evidence gaps about programme dynamics and impacts. This paper proposes a new evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional approaches, by highlighting relatively neglected aspects related to programme processes, social dynamics and feedback loops in programme evaluations.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100618,"journal":{"name":"IDS Working Papers","volume":"2013 431","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00431.x","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IDS Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00431.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

The evidence base on social protection programmes is expanding rapidly, largely pointing towards their positive impacts. Most evaluations rely heavily on quantitative techniques and experimental methods to allow for attribution of impacts. In this paper, we argue that new ways of investigation and analysis are needed to expand and deepen the evidence base in support of improved design and implementation of social protection. Greater emphasis on qualitative research, mixed methods and participatory evaluation is crucial, given current evidence gaps about programme dynamics and impacts. This paper proposes a new evaluation framework that goes beyond conventional approaches, by highlighting relatively neglected aspects related to programme processes, social dynamics and feedback loops in programme evaluations.

跳出框框进行评估:分析社会保护方案的另一种框架
以社会保护方案为基础的证据正在迅速扩大,主要指向其积极影响。大多数评价严重依赖定量技术和实验方法来确定影响的归因。在本文中,我们认为需要新的调查和分析方法来扩大和深化证据基础,以支持改进社会保护的设计和实施。鉴于目前关于方案动态和影响的证据差距,更加强调定性研究、混合方法和参与性评价至关重要。本文提出了一个超越传统方法的新的评价框架,突出方案评价中与方案进程、社会动态和反馈循环有关的相对被忽视的方面。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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