元评价:通过联合国评价质量评估(EQAs)验证计划评价标准

Q2 Social Sciences
Sandra Ayoo, Meghan Leeming, Stacy R Huff
{"title":"元评价:通过联合国评价质量评估(EQAs)验证计划评价标准","authors":"Sandra Ayoo, Meghan Leeming, Stacy R Huff","doi":"10.1177/1035719x231220979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2015 United Nation’s ‘Eval Year’ declaration heightened program evaluation’s significance in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, uncertainties persist regarding evaluating high-quality evaluations and addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluations. The field lacks consensus on both conducting meta-evaluation and the standards to use. To address this, we reviewed meta-evaluation literature, mapped the American Evaluation Association’s foundational documents with the United Nations Evaluation Group’s Norms and Standards to explore their intersectionality on social justice, and analysed 62 United Nations Population Fund evaluation reports alongside their management responses. Our findings indicate that addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluation is contingent on context rather than established standards. Thus, it’s crucial for evaluators to prioritise social justice in evaluation design and implementation, and to select quality assurance tools that match the evaluation context and professional association guidelines, especially in the absence of standardised guidelines.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"7 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs)\",\"authors\":\"Sandra Ayoo, Meghan Leeming, Stacy R Huff\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719x231220979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 2015 United Nation’s ‘Eval Year’ declaration heightened program evaluation’s significance in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, uncertainties persist regarding evaluating high-quality evaluations and addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluations. The field lacks consensus on both conducting meta-evaluation and the standards to use. To address this, we reviewed meta-evaluation literature, mapped the American Evaluation Association’s foundational documents with the United Nations Evaluation Group’s Norms and Standards to explore their intersectionality on social justice, and analysed 62 United Nations Population Fund evaluation reports alongside their management responses. Our findings indicate that addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluation is contingent on context rather than established standards. Thus, it’s crucial for evaluators to prioritise social justice in evaluation design and implementation, and to select quality assurance tools that match the evaluation context and professional association guidelines, especially in the absence of standardised guidelines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"7 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"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/10.1177/1035719x231220979\",\"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/10.1177/1035719x231220979","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

2015年联合国“评估年”宣言强调了项目评估对实现可持续发展目标的重要性。然而,在评估高质量评估和解决元评估中的社会公正问题方面,不确定性仍然存在。该领域在进行元评估和使用标准方面缺乏共识。为了解决这个问题,我们回顾了元评估文献,将美国评估协会的基础文件与联合国评估小组的规范和标准进行了对比,以探索它们在社会正义方面的相互关系,并分析了62份联合国人口基金评估报告及其管理层的回应。我们的研究结果表明,在元评价中解决社会公正问题取决于环境,而不是既定的标准。因此,对于评估人员来说,在评估设计和实施中优先考虑社会公正,并选择与评估背景和专业协会指南相匹配的质量保证工具是至关重要的,特别是在缺乏标准化指南的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs)
The 2015 United Nation’s ‘Eval Year’ declaration heightened program evaluation’s significance in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, uncertainties persist regarding evaluating high-quality evaluations and addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluations. The field lacks consensus on both conducting meta-evaluation and the standards to use. To address this, we reviewed meta-evaluation literature, mapped the American Evaluation Association’s foundational documents with the United Nations Evaluation Group’s Norms and Standards to explore their intersectionality on social justice, and analysed 62 United Nations Population Fund evaluation reports alongside their management responses. Our findings indicate that addressing social justice concerns in meta-evaluation is contingent on context rather than established standards. Thus, it’s crucial for evaluators to prioritise social justice in evaluation design and implementation, and to select quality assurance tools that match the evaluation context and professional association guidelines, especially in the absence of standardised guidelines.
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
×
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