IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v80y2020ics0149718919303933.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clarifying the role of belief-motive explanations in multi-stakeholder realist evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, S.
  • Dadich, A.
  • Stout, B.
  • Plath, D.

Abstract

In realist evaluation, where researchers aim to make program theories explicit, they can encounter competing explanations as to how programs work. Managing explanatory tensions from different sources of evidence in multi-stakeholder projects can challenge external evaluators, especially when access to pertinent data, like client records, is mediated by program stakeholders. In this article, we consider two central questions: how can program stakeholder motives shape a realist evaluation project; and how might realist evaluators respond to stakeholders’ belief-motive explanations, including those about program effectiveness, based on factors such as supererogatory commitment or trying together in good faith? Drawing on our realist evaluation of a service reform initiative involving multiple agencies, we describe stakeholder motives at key phases, highlighting a need for tactics and skills that help to manage explanatory tensions. In conclusion, the relevance of stakeholders’ belief-motive explanations (‘we believe the program works’) in realist evaluation is clarified and discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919303933
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919303933
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101800?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. Chouinard, Jill Anne & Milley, Peter, 2016. "Mapping the spatial dimensions of participatory practice: A discussion of context in evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Roseland, Denise & Lawrenz, Frances & Thao, Mao, 2015. "The relationship between involvement in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-82.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Toal, Stacie A. & King, Jean A. & Johnson, Kelli & Lawrenz, Frances, 2009. "The unique character of involvement in multi-site evaluation settings," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 91-98, May.
    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. Pilar Serrano-Gallardo & Viola Cassetti & An L. D. Boone & Marta María Pisano-González, 2022. "Recruiting Participants in Vulnerable Situations: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Recruitment Process in the EFFICHRONIC Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    3. Azzam, Tarek & Wanzer, Dana Linnell & Knight, Ciara & Codd, Heather, 2021. "The manifestations of politics in evaluation: An exploratory study across the evaluation process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Miriam R. Jacobson & Tarek Azzam, 2016. "Methodological Credibility," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(1), pages 29-60, February.
    5. Roseland, Denise & Lawrenz, Frances & Thao, Mao, 2015. "The relationship between involvement in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-82.
    6. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel Angel & van Loon, Jos, 2018. "Understanding organization transformation in evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.
    7. 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.
    8. Schultes, Marie-Therese & Kollmayer, Marlene & Mejeh, Mathias & Spiel, Christiane, 2018. "Attitudes toward evaluation: An exploratory study of students’ and stakeholders’ social representations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 44-50.

    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:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919303933. 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.