将公平纳入计划评估的方法:范围审查

IF 2 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Oeishi Faruquzzaman , Samson Tse , Ruth Cameron , Kenny Chee , Maritt Kirst , Ciann Wilson
{"title":"将公平纳入计划评估的方法:范围审查","authors":"Oeishi Faruquzzaman ,&nbsp;Samson Tse ,&nbsp;Ruth Cameron ,&nbsp;Kenny Chee ,&nbsp;Maritt Kirst ,&nbsp;Ciann Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recognizing the ways in which traditional program evaluation approaches can perpetuate and reinforce systemic oppression, the field of program evaluation is at a crossroads. There is a newfound focus on promoting and advancing social justice and equity in the field of program evaluation. There are various fields of evaluation that have a focus on equity, with some types of evaluation such as decolonial and culturally responsive evaluation having been well established and new approaches such as equitable evaluation. The present scoping review sought to create a snapshot of existing equitable evaluation and other evaluation approach literature that seek to advance equity in process and/or outcome. A scoping review of English academic and grey literature (<em>N</em> = 42) of equity-focused or promoting evaluation frameworks such as equitable evaluation, culturally responsive, anti-racist, decolonial, and Indigenous evaluation was conducted. After reviewing the literature, we identified seven common themes for advancing equity in evaluation: a consideration of context, engaging with program partners, adapting traditional evaluation instruments and methods, utilizing a strengths-based focus, engaging in self-reflection and self-learning, shifting/addressing power imbalances, and the use of participatory methods. Identified themes can act as guiding principles, with which to advance equity-focused evaluation practices. Implications and future directions in promoting social justice in the field of program evaluation are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 102648"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approaches to incorporating equity into program evaluation: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Oeishi Faruquzzaman ,&nbsp;Samson Tse ,&nbsp;Ruth Cameron ,&nbsp;Kenny Chee ,&nbsp;Maritt Kirst ,&nbsp;Ciann Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102648\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recognizing the ways in which traditional program evaluation approaches can perpetuate and reinforce systemic oppression, the field of program evaluation is at a crossroads. There is a newfound focus on promoting and advancing social justice and equity in the field of program evaluation. There are various fields of evaluation that have a focus on equity, with some types of evaluation such as decolonial and culturally responsive evaluation having been well established and new approaches such as equitable evaluation. The present scoping review sought to create a snapshot of existing equitable evaluation and other evaluation approach literature that seek to advance equity in process and/or outcome. A scoping review of English academic and grey literature (<em>N</em> = 42) of equity-focused or promoting evaluation frameworks such as equitable evaluation, culturally responsive, anti-racist, decolonial, and Indigenous evaluation was conducted. After reviewing the literature, we identified seven common themes for advancing equity in evaluation: a consideration of context, engaging with program partners, adapting traditional evaluation instruments and methods, utilizing a strengths-based focus, engaging in self-reflection and self-learning, shifting/addressing power imbalances, and the use of participatory methods. Identified themes can act as guiding principles, with which to advance equity-focused evaluation practices. Implications and future directions in promoting social justice in the field of program evaluation are discussed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"volume\":\"112 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102648\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"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/S0149718925001156\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718925001156","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

摘要

认识到传统的项目评估方法可以延续和加强系统压迫的方式,项目评估领域正处于十字路口。在项目评估领域,促进和推进社会公正和公平是一个新的重点。有各种评价领域以公平为重点,一些评价类型,如非殖民化评价和对文化有反应的评价已经确立,一些新的评价方法,如公平评价。本范围审查力求对现有的公平评价和其他旨在促进过程和(或)结果公平的评价方法文献进行简要介绍。对英国学术和灰色文献(N = 42)进行了范围审查,以公平评价为重点或促进评价框架,如公平评价、文化反应性评价、反种族主义评价、非殖民化评价和土著评价。在回顾文献后,我们确定了促进评估公平性的七个共同主题:考虑背景、与项目合作伙伴合作、调整传统评估工具和方法、利用基于优势的重点、进行自我反思和自我学习、改变/解决权力不平衡以及使用参与式方法。确定的主题可以作为指导原则,推动以股票为重点的评估实践。讨论了在项目评估领域促进社会公正的意义和未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Approaches to incorporating equity into program evaluation: A scoping review
Recognizing the ways in which traditional program evaluation approaches can perpetuate and reinforce systemic oppression, the field of program evaluation is at a crossroads. There is a newfound focus on promoting and advancing social justice and equity in the field of program evaluation. There are various fields of evaluation that have a focus on equity, with some types of evaluation such as decolonial and culturally responsive evaluation having been well established and new approaches such as equitable evaluation. The present scoping review sought to create a snapshot of existing equitable evaluation and other evaluation approach literature that seek to advance equity in process and/or outcome. A scoping review of English academic and grey literature (N = 42) of equity-focused or promoting evaluation frameworks such as equitable evaluation, culturally responsive, anti-racist, decolonial, and Indigenous evaluation was conducted. After reviewing the literature, we identified seven common themes for advancing equity in evaluation: a consideration of context, engaging with program partners, adapting traditional evaluation instruments and methods, utilizing a strengths-based focus, engaging in self-reflection and self-learning, shifting/addressing power imbalances, and the use of participatory methods. Identified themes can act as guiding principles, with which to advance equity-focused evaluation practices. Implications and future directions in promoting social justice in the field of program evaluation are discussed.
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 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