循证决策时代的评价:承诺、陷阱和前进道路

Q2 Social Sciences
G. VanLandingham
{"title":"循证决策时代的评价:承诺、陷阱和前进道路","authors":"G. VanLandingham","doi":"10.1177/1035719X20928164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluators have long sought a world in which our work makes a tangible difference to society, but that goal has often seemed out of reach. However, in recent years, advocates have proclaimed an era of evidence-based policymaking in which the What Works data generated by evaluations will be increasingly used to inform programme and policy choices. Four primary factors have been critical to the rise of this approach – attaining a critical mass of curated What Works’ evidence, growing interest among political leaders in considering this information when making choices, new budgetary mechanisms for using these data and new tools that facilitate rigorous outcome studies. However, the movement also faces critical challenges including the growing distrust of empirical data among some political factions, leaks in the evaluation pipeline that generates data to identify What Works and the replication failure of many evidence-based interventions. The evaluation field should support this movement through efforts to plug leaks in the evidence pipeline, stronger efforts to assess implementation challenges, training students in evidence-based approaches and assisting in outreach to policymakers.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"20 1","pages":"129 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X20928164","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation in the age of evidence-based policymaking: Promises, pitfalls and paths forward\",\"authors\":\"G. VanLandingham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719X20928164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evaluators have long sought a world in which our work makes a tangible difference to society, but that goal has often seemed out of reach. However, in recent years, advocates have proclaimed an era of evidence-based policymaking in which the What Works data generated by evaluations will be increasingly used to inform programme and policy choices. Four primary factors have been critical to the rise of this approach – attaining a critical mass of curated What Works’ evidence, growing interest among political leaders in considering this information when making choices, new budgetary mechanisms for using these data and new tools that facilitate rigorous outcome studies. However, the movement also faces critical challenges including the growing distrust of empirical data among some political factions, leaks in the evaluation pipeline that generates data to identify What Works and the replication failure of many evidence-based interventions. The evaluation field should support this movement through efforts to plug leaks in the evidence pipeline, stronger efforts to assess implementation challenges, training students in evidence-based approaches and assisting in outreach to policymakers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"129 - 139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X20928164\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X20928164\",\"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/10.1177/1035719X20928164","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: 2

摘要

长期以来,评估人员一直在寻求一个让我们的工作对社会产生切实影响的世界,但这个目标似乎往往遥不可及。然而,近年来,倡导者们宣布了一个循证决策的时代,在这个时代,评估产生的有效数据将越来越多地用于为方案和政策选择提供信息。四个主要因素对这种方法的兴起至关重要——获得了大量精心策划的“什么有效”证据,政治领导人在做出选择时越来越有兴趣考虑这些信息,使用这些数据的新预算机制以及促进严格结果研究的新工具。然而,这场运动也面临着严峻的挑战,包括一些政治派别对实证数据越来越不信任,产生数据以确定什么有效的评估管道中的漏洞,以及许多循证干预措施的复制失败。评估领域应通过努力堵塞证据管道中的漏洞、加大力度评估实施挑战、培训学生循证方法以及协助与决策者接触来支持这一运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation in the age of evidence-based policymaking: Promises, pitfalls and paths forward
Evaluators have long sought a world in which our work makes a tangible difference to society, but that goal has often seemed out of reach. However, in recent years, advocates have proclaimed an era of evidence-based policymaking in which the What Works data generated by evaluations will be increasingly used to inform programme and policy choices. Four primary factors have been critical to the rise of this approach – attaining a critical mass of curated What Works’ evidence, growing interest among political leaders in considering this information when making choices, new budgetary mechanisms for using these data and new tools that facilitate rigorous outcome studies. However, the movement also faces critical challenges including the growing distrust of empirical data among some political factions, leaks in the evaluation pipeline that generates data to identify What Works and the replication failure of many evidence-based interventions. The evaluation field should support this movement through efforts to plug leaks in the evidence pipeline, stronger efforts to assess implementation challenges, training students in evidence-based approaches and assisting in outreach to policymakers.
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