IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v53y2015icp44-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics in evaluation: Politically responsive evaluation in high stakes environments

Author

Listed:
  • Azzam, Tarek
  • Levine, Bret

Abstract

The role of politics has often been discussed in evaluation theory and practice. The political influence of the situation can have major effects on the evaluation design, approach and methods. Politics also has the potential to influence the decisions made from the evaluation findings. The current study focuses on the influence of the political context on stakeholder decision making. Utilizing a simulation scenario, this study compares stakeholder decision making in high and low stakes evaluation contexts. Findings suggest that high stakes political environments are more likely than low stakes environments to lead to reduced reliance on technically appropriate measures and increased dependence on measures better reflect the broader political environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Azzam, Tarek & Levine, Bret, 2015. "Politics in evaluation: Politically responsive evaluation in high stakes environments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 44-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:53:y:2015:i:c:p:44-56
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000695
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. -, 1998. "Evaluación de proyectos: tres artículos," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 31002, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    2. -, 1998. "Evaluación de Quito," Copublicaciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 2058.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evans, S. & Dadich, A. & Stout, B. & Plath, D., 2020. "Clarifying the role of belief-motive explanations in multi-stakeholder realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    3. Miriam R. Jacobson & Tarek Azzam, 2016. "Methodological Credibility," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(1), pages 29-60, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yerko Rojas, 2017. "Evictions and short-term all-cause mortality: a 3-year follow-up study of a middle-aged Swedish population," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 62(3), pages 343-351, April.
    2. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    3. Jabeen, Sumera, 2016. "Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 144-154.
    4. Jolley, Gwyneth, 2014. "Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: Addressing the challenges," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 71-81.
    5. Patterson, Laurie B. & Backhouse, Susan H. & Duffy, Patrick J., 2016. "Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-47.
    6. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:53:y:2015:i:c:p:44-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.