IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp82-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pathways to use of communication campaigns’ evaluation findings within international organizations

Author

Listed:
  • O’Neil, Glenn
  • Bauer, Martin W.

Abstract

This article presents a study on the pathways and processes regarding the use of evaluation findings of communication campaigns from two international organizations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Several years after the completion of the campaigns and their evaluations, our research identified 28 instances of use and six instances of non-use of the evaluation results, of which the large majority being surprising in nature. Results showed that evaluation use facilitated formal and informal changes at the individual and the organizational level; and, this pattern occurred in a predominantly non-linear fashion, interconnected and overlapping, while gradually decreasing in time and space. Evaluation use was mostly unpredictable, which reflected how meanings are constructed by staff members, as they adjusted and interpreted the findings in opportunistic ways.

Suggested Citation

  • O’Neil, Glenn & Bauer, Martin W., 2018. "Pathways to use of communication campaigns’ evaluation findings within international organizations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:82-91
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891730321X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.04.013?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. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    2. Betty Vandenbosch & Chris Higgins, 1996. "Information Acquisition and Mental Models: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Behaviour and Learning," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 198-214, June.
    3. Hall, Matthew, 2011. "Do comprehensive performance measurement systems help or hinder managers' mental model development?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Mowbray, Carol T., 1992. "The role of evaluation in the restructuring of the public mental health system," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 403-415.
    5. Mohammed, Susan & Ringseis, Erika, 2001. "Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 310-335, July.
    6. Mathison, Sandra, 1994. "Rethinking the evaluator role: Partnerships between organizations and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 299-304.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    2. Olson, Bradley J. & Bao, Yongjian & Parayitam, Satyanarayana, 2007. "Strategic decision making within Chinese firms: The effects of cognitive diversity and trust on decision outcomes," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-46, March.
    3. Gebauer, Heiko & Worch, Hagen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Absorptive capacity, learning processes and combinative capabilities as determinants of strategic innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 57-73.
    4. Young-Choon Kim & Taekjin Shin & Sangchan Park, 2021. "Enhancing firm performance through intra-group managerial experience: Evidence from group-affiliated firms in Korea," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 435-465, June.
    5. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    6. Yannick LUNG & Bernard JULLIEN & Christophe MIDLER, 2016. "From the Logan to the Kwid. \r\nAmbidexterity, reverse and fractal innovation, design-to-cost: recipes from Renault\'s Entry strategy," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2016-19, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    7. Nurmi, Raimo, 1998. "Knowledge-intensive firms," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 26-32.
    8. Innan Sasaki & Niina Nummela & Davide Ravasi, 2021. "Managing cultural specificity and cultural embeddedness when internationalizing: Cultural strategies of Japanese craft firms," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(2), pages 245-281, March.
    9. Theodosiou, Marios & Leonidou, Leonidas C., 2003. "Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: an integrative assessment of the empirical research," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 141-171, April.
    10. Alexis Laszczuk & Lionel Garreau & Bernard de Montmorillon, 2017. "Understanding emergence in business model development: how companies interact with stakeholders to deal with environmental ambiguity," Post-Print hal-01787276, HAL.
    11. Grant, Peter R., 1997. "The relocation of nursing home residents: An illustration of the advantages gained by planning a new program and designing an implementation evaluation together," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 507-516, November.
    12. Phillips, Paul & Moutinho, Luiz, 2014. "Critical review of strategic planning research in hospitality and tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 96-120.
    13. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    14. Srikant, Chethan D., 2019. "Impression management strategies to gain regulatory approval," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 136-153.
    15. OGREAN Claudia, 2015. "Business Models To Meet The Challenges Of The Global Economy. A Literature Review," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 67(6), pages 127-146, December.
    16. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    17. Bjorn Remneland Wikhamn & Alexander Styhre, 2019. "Open Innovation Groundwork," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(02), pages 1-29, January.
    18. Bryan T. Stinchfield & Reed E. Nelson & Matthew S. Wood, 2013. "Learning from Levi–Strauss’ Legacy: Art, Craft, Engineering, Bricolage, and Brokerage in Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(4), pages 889-921, July.
    19. Lant Pritchett & Salimah Samji & Jeffrey S. Hammer, 2012. "It's All about MeE: Using Structured Experiential Learning ('e') to Crawl the Design Space," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-104, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Ford, David & Mouzas, Stefanos, 2008. "Is there any hope? The idea of strategy in business networks," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 64-78.

    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:69:y:2018:i:c:p:82-91. 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.