IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v68y2018icp262-274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unintended outcomes evaluation approach: A plausible way to evaluate unintended outcomes of social development programmes

Author

Listed:
  • Jabeen, Sumera

Abstract

Social development programmes are deliberate attempts to bring about change and unintended outcomes can be considered as inherent to any such intervention. There is now a solid consensus among the international evaluation community regarding the need to consider unintended outcomes as a key aspect in any evaluative study. However, this concern often equates to nothing more than false piety. Exiting evaluation theory suffers from overlap of terminology, inadequate categorisation of unintended outcomes and lack of guidance on how to study them.

Suggested Citation

  • Jabeen, Sumera, 2018. "Unintended outcomes evaluation approach: A plausible way to evaluate unintended outcomes of social development programmes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 262-274.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:262-274
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917302999
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.005?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. Nava Ashraf & Xavier Giné & Dean Karlan, 2009. "Finding Missing Markets (and a Disturbing Epilogue): Evidence from an Export Crop Adoption and Marketing Intervention in Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 973-990.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 125-134, February.
    3. Alejandro Portes, 2010. "Economic Sociology: A Systematic Inquiry," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9211.
    4. Carol H. Weiss, 1997. "How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 21(4), pages 501-524, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    7. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    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. de Alteriis, Martin, 2020. "What can we learn about unintended consequences from a textual analysis of monitoring reports and evaluations for U.S. foreign assistance programs?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Davidson, Angus Alexander & Young, Michael Denis & Leake, John Espie & O’Connor, Patrick, 2022. "Aid and forgetting the enemy: A systematic review of the unintended consequences of international development in fragile and conflict-affected situations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Dirk-Jan Koch & Jolynde Vis & Maria van der Harst & Elric Tendron & Joost de Laat, 2021. "Assessing International Development Cooperation: Becoming Intentional about Unintended Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-26, October.

    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. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2019. "Evaluating unintended program outcomes through Ripple Effects Mapping (REM): Application of REM using grounded theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    2. 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.
    3. Ofek, Yuval, 2017. "Evaluating social exclusion interventions in university-community partnerships," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 46-55.
    4. Mariani, Marcello & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2024. "Generative artificial intelligence in innovation management: A preview of future research developments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Prommer, Lisa & Tiberius, Victor & Kraus, Sascha, 2020. "Exploring the future of startup leadership development," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    6. Krstic, Bojan & Krstic, Milos, 2015. "Models Of Irrational Behaviour Of Household And Firm," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 61(4), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Pooja Kushwaha & M. K. Rao, 2017. "Integrating the Linkages between Learning Systems and Knowledge Process: An Exploration of Learning Outcomes," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 5(1), pages 11-23, January.
    8. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    9. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    10. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    11. von dem Knesebeck, Olaf & Joksimovic, Ljiljana & Badura, Bernhard & Siegrist, Johannes, 2002. "Evaluation of a community-level health policy intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 111-122, July.
    12. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    13. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    14. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    15. Zhang, Hong & Gu, Chao-lin & Gu, Lu-wen & Zhang, Yan, 2011. "The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy – A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 443-451.
    16. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    17. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Micheels, Eric T., 2014. "Experience and learning in beef production: Results from a cluster analysis," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 3(3), pages 1-10.
    19. Volkan Hasan Kaya & Doris Elster, 2019. "A Critical Consideration of Environmental Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Competencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    20. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.

    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:68:y:2018:i:c:p:262-274. 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.