结果轨迹评价(OTE):一种解决研发长因果链问题的方法

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
B. Douthwaite, C. Proietti, V. Polar, G. Thiele
{"title":"结果轨迹评价(OTE):一种解决研发长因果链问题的方法","authors":"B. Douthwaite, C. Proietti, V. Polar, G. Thiele","doi":"10.1177/10982140221122771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops a novel approach called Outcome Trajectory Evaluation (OTE) in response to the long-causal-chain problem confronting the evaluation of research for development (R4D) projects. OTE strives to tackle four issues resulting from the common practice of evaluating R4D projects based on theory of change developed at the start. The approach was developed iteratively while conducting four evaluations of policy-related outcomes claimed by the CGIAR, a global R4D organization. The first step is to use a middle-range theory (MRT), based on “grand” social science theory, to help delineate and understand the trajectory that generated the set of outcomes being evaluated. The second step is to then identify project contribution to that trajectory. Other types of theory-driven evaluation are single step: they model how projects achieve outcomes without first considering the overarching causal mechanism—the outcome trajectory—from which the outcomes emerged. The use of an MRT allowed us to accrue learning from one evaluation to the next.","PeriodicalId":51449,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Evaluation","volume":"44 1","pages":"335 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome Trajectory Evaluation (OTE): An Approach to Tackle Research-for-Development’s Long-Causal-Chain Problem\",\"authors\":\"B. Douthwaite, C. Proietti, V. Polar, G. Thiele\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10982140221122771\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper develops a novel approach called Outcome Trajectory Evaluation (OTE) in response to the long-causal-chain problem confronting the evaluation of research for development (R4D) projects. OTE strives to tackle four issues resulting from the common practice of evaluating R4D projects based on theory of change developed at the start. The approach was developed iteratively while conducting four evaluations of policy-related outcomes claimed by the CGIAR, a global R4D organization. The first step is to use a middle-range theory (MRT), based on “grand” social science theory, to help delineate and understand the trajectory that generated the set of outcomes being evaluated. The second step is to then identify project contribution to that trajectory. Other types of theory-driven evaluation are single step: they model how projects achieve outcomes without first considering the overarching causal mechanism—the outcome trajectory—from which the outcomes emerged. The use of an MRT allowed us to accrue learning from one evaluation to the next.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"335 - 352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221122771\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221122771","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: 1

摘要

针对研发项目评估面临的长期因果链问题,本文开发了一种新的方法,称为成果轨迹评估(OTE)。OTE致力于解决四个问题,这四个问题是基于一开始开发的变革理论评估R4D项目的常见做法产生的。该方法是在对全球R4D组织CGIAR声称的政策相关结果进行四次评估的同时反复制定的。第一步是使用基于“大”社会科学理论的中程理论(MRT),帮助描绘和理解产生所评估结果集的轨迹。第二步是确定项目对该轨迹的贡献。其他类型的理论驱动的评估是单一步骤:它们模拟项目如何实现结果,而不首先考虑产生结果的总体因果机制——结果轨迹。MRT的使用使我们能够从一个评估到下一个评估积累学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcome Trajectory Evaluation (OTE): An Approach to Tackle Research-for-Development’s Long-Causal-Chain Problem
This paper develops a novel approach called Outcome Trajectory Evaluation (OTE) in response to the long-causal-chain problem confronting the evaluation of research for development (R4D) projects. OTE strives to tackle four issues resulting from the common practice of evaluating R4D projects based on theory of change developed at the start. The approach was developed iteratively while conducting four evaluations of policy-related outcomes claimed by the CGIAR, a global R4D organization. The first step is to use a middle-range theory (MRT), based on “grand” social science theory, to help delineate and understand the trajectory that generated the set of outcomes being evaluated. The second step is to then identify project contribution to that trajectory. Other types of theory-driven evaluation are single step: they model how projects achieve outcomes without first considering the overarching causal mechanism—the outcome trajectory—from which the outcomes emerged. The use of an MRT allowed us to accrue learning from one evaluation to the next.
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
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