|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Evidence, Understanding and Complexity
Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems
Marian Barnes
University of Birmingham, UK, m.barnes{at}bham.ac.uk
Elizabeth Matka
University of Birmingham, UK, e.matka{at}bham.ac.uk
Helen Sullivan
University of the West of England, UK, helen.sullivan{at}uwe.ac.uk
This article discusses the challenges associated with the evaluation of complex policy initiatives, focusing on one element of the national evaluation of Health Action Zones in England: Building Capacity for Collaboration. It describes the multiple dimensions of complexity that characterize HAZs and considers the limitations of the Theory of Change approach in encompassing the diverse change processes that HAZs seek to promote. Drawing on social constructionist perspectives and from both complexity theory and new institutional theory, the authors propose that evaluators need not only to be able to work with change theories generated within such complex programmes, but also to apply `higher level' theory to an understanding of the way such programmes develop. They argue that the role of evaluators in `telling the story' is an important part of the evaluation challenge in such contexts.
Key Words: community collaboration • complexity • Health Action Zones • new institutional theory • social constructionism
Evaluation, Vol. 9, No. 3,
265-284 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/13563890030093003
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
S. Mann and J. Schweiger
Using the Objective Hermeneutics Method in Policy Evaluation
Evaluation,
October 1, 2009;
15(4):
445 - 457.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Potvin, A. Bilodeau, and S. Gendron
Trois defis pour l'evaluation en promotion de la sante
Global Health Promotion,
March 1, 2008;
15(1_suppl):
17 - 21.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Walker
Entropy and the Evaluation of Labour Market Interventions
Evaluation,
April 1, 2007;
13(2):
193 - 219.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. J. Schweigert
The Meaning of Effectiveness in Assessing Community Initiatives
American Journal of Evaluation,
December 1, 2006;
27(4):
416 - 436.
[Abstract]
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Davis
The Limits of Realist Evaluation: Surfacing and Exploring Assumptions in Assessing the Best Value Performance Regime
Evaluation,
July 1, 2005;
11(3):
275 - 295.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
