This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sanderson, I. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluation in Complex Policy Systems

Policy Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

The renewed emphasis in the UK on ‘evidence-based policy making’ has sharpened the focus on the utilization debate in the evaluation community. Traditionally, the emphasis is placed on methodological concerns but this article argues for a sharper focus on the underpinning theoretical bases of policy evaluation, both in terms of its role in policy making and in terms of the substantive theories which inform policy development and implementation. In particular, the article seeks to assess the implications of complexity theory for our theoretical assumptions about policy systems. It is argued that, together with ‘new institutionalist’ thought and recent work on policy implementation structures, notions of complexity have substantial ramifications for the way in which we approach policy evaluation, given the contemporary concern to address ‘cross-cutting’ social problems through ‘joined-up’ policy initiatives. It is suggested that our thinking about evaluation reflects the broader reaction against ‘modernist’ conceptions of the role of social science in our quest to change and improve the world.

Key Words: complexity theory • cross-cutting issues • epistemology • new institutionalism • organizational theory

Evaluation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 433-454 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/13563890022209415


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Callaghan Evaluation and Negotiated Order: Developing the Application of Complexity Theory Evaluation, October 1, 2008; 14(4): 399 - 411. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Haveri Evaluation of Change in Local Governance: The Rhetorical Wall and the Politics of Images Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 141 - 155. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. A. Abma and G. A.M. Widdershoven Evaluation and/as Social Relation Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 209 - 225. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Rogers Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions Evaluation, January 1, 2008; 14(1): 29 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Spicer and P. Smith Evaluating Complex, Area-Based Initiatives in a Context of Change: The Experience of the Children's Fund Initiative Evaluation, January 1, 2008; 14(1): 75 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. J. Taylor, M. Dempster, and M. Donnelly Grading Gems: Appraising the Quality of Research for Social Work and Social Care Br. J. Soc. Work, February 1, 2007; 37(2): 335 - 354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Burton, R. Goodlad, and J. Croft How Would We Know What Works?: Context and Complexity in the Evaluation of Community Involvement Evaluation, July 1, 2006; 12(3): 294 - 312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Lehtonen Deliberative Democracy, Participation, and OECD Peer Reviews of Environmental Policies American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2006; 27(2): 185 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Whitelaw, C. Martin, A. Kerr, and E. Wimbush An evaluation of the Health Promoting Health Service Framework: the implementation of a settings based approach within the NHS in Scotland Health Promot. Int., June 1, 2006; 21(2): 136 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Martin Speeches and Addresses : Evaluation, Inspection and the Improvement Agenda: Contrasting Fortunes in an Era of Evidence-Based Policy-Making Evaluation, October 1, 2005; 11(4): 496 - 504. [PDF]

				M. Rolfsen and H. Torvatn How to 'Get Through': Communication Challenges in Formative Evaluation Evaluation, July 1, 2005; 11(3): 297 - 309. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Mackenzie and A. Blamey The Practice and the Theory: Lessons from the Application of a Theories of Change Approach Evaluation, April 1, 2005; 11(2): 151 - 168. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Saunders, B. Charlier, and J. Bonamy Using Evaluation to Create 'Provisional Stabilities': Bridging Innovation in Higher Education Change Processes Evaluation, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 37 - 54. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Alexander Health-Service Evaluations: Should We Expect the Results to Change Practice? Evaluation, October 1, 2003; 9(4): 405 - 414. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Barnes, E. Matka, and H. Sullivan Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems Evaluation, July 1, 2003; 9(3): 265 - 284. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Boaz and C. Hayden Pro-active Evaluators: Enabling Research to Be Useful, Usable and Used Evaluation, October 1, 2002; 8(4): 440 - 453. [Abstract] [PDF]