Search results

Current U.S. nuclear strategy identifies new nuclear counterforce missions as a means of impeding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The strategy appears to overvalue these counterforce missions. U.S. conventional weapons can destroy most targets that can be destroyed with nuclear weapons; only moderately deep and precisely located targets can be destroyed only by nuclear weapons. In addition, the benefits of nuclear counterforce-which could include deterrence, damage limitation, and the continued ability of the United States to pursue its foreign policy objectives-are relatively small, because the United States possesses large nuclear forces and highly effective conventional forces. Finally, nuclear counterforce would bring a variety of costs, including an increased probability of accidental war and unnecessary preemptive attacks in a severe crisis. Nevertheless, the case for nuclear counterforce is stronger than during the Cold War, when the enormous size and redundancy of U.S. and Soviet forces rendered counterforce useless. When facing a small nuclear force, the United States may decide to use counterforce to limit damage. Although complex trade-offs are involved, if there are critical targets that can be destroyed only with nuclear weapons, then under a narrow set of conditions the benefits of planning for damage limitation might exceed the dangers. The United States must not, however, rely on nuclear counterforce to support a more assertive foreign policy; doing so would unjustifiably increase the probability of nuclear war.

The Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) is an important tool for long-term development of any country. It attempts to balance state, public, private and donor interests into a single 10-year planning framework. Attempts to learn from experience of using the model have been gathered by the World Bank in almost 50 low-income pilot countries. These identify some of the benefits and constraints. This article takes the example of Kyrgyz Republic in Central Asia where the CDF approach was introduced in 2001. The research is based on interim findings from a donor-funded project to assist the strengthening of the CDF. This assessment notes the way in which the CDF has been used to promote national identity and only latterly been more closely integrated with the National Poverty Reduction Strategy, which has a three-year plan. The range of stakeholders remains wide, putting pressure on the coordinating authority within the President's Office. Important implications for monitoring and evaluation methodologies are drawn through pilot research in two districts. The need for local participation and bottom-up approaches is critical in order to balance the over-centralized approach of the past. Issues of capacity, including skills and systems for the coordinating body and other stakeholders, are crucial when considering what will work.

This article compares the influence of evaluation in two different public education contexts. One evaluation was knowledge-focused, with the evaluators acting as external judges in a context of top-down changes at post-implementation stage in infant and primary schools. The other was development-focused from a constructivist perspective in a context of bottom-up changes during the building of a shared model in a university administration department. The effects of the former were limited to the impact of disseminating scientific information. The latter evaluation had several effects, many of them indirect and diffuse. The main source of influence was participative discussion about evaluation procedures and their results. The advisability of participative evaluation to support system changes and model construction is discussed. The authors also suggest that the concept of influence be considered in the broad sense so different types of influence (multidirectional, indirect, unintended, non-instrumental) can be included as an evaluation impact.

Evidence-informed policy and practice call on research addressing a broad range of research questions: evaluating the need for, and development, implementation, acceptability and effectiveness of interventions. Synthesizing this evidence requires methods that integrate the findings from diverse study designs. This article reports the development of a new model of research synthesis for this purpose. On completion of a series of substantive reviews, methodological reflections addressed: the interrelationship between review questions, relevant theory and values within the review process; methodological similarities and differences with more conventional reviews of effectiveness; the added value in terms of conclusions and specific recommendations; and the relevance to public policy.

Participatory evaluation methodologies are considered to produce many positive and empowering impacts. However, given the complex power, knowledge and discursive issues involved and other factors, use of these methodologies can have contradictory effects. This article presents results from the implementation of a process that aimed to build the capacities of people in two Australian rural communities to evaluate their local communication and information technology (C&IT) initiatives. The 'LEARNERS' process used participatory action research and participatory evaluation methods, and took an inclusive 'whole of community' approach. The process aimed to enhance community development and to facilitate community empowerment, participation and leadership, particularly for women. Rigorous analysis of the impacts of the project found that it was effective in producing various degrees of social, technological, political and psychological empowerment. However, some corresponding disempowering impacts were also identified. The strengths and limitations of this evaluation capacity-building process and the lessons learned are considered.

A variety of different evaluation models are presented in the evaluation literature. These mostly fall into the following categories: results models, process models, system models, economic models, actor models, and programme theory models. This raises the question:'how can evaluation sponsors and evaluators decide how to design an evaluation with so many models to choose from?' In this article, several - mutually incompatible - recommendations are discussed. Design should be determined by the purpose of the evaluation, the object of evaluation or the problem to be solved by the evaluated programme or agency. The recommendations are based on different rationales: goals-means, context-based values and programme theory. Furthermore, in practice other logics may influence the evaluation design processes. Four hypotheses concerning such logics are proposed: negotiation, appropriateness,'routine' and projection of competence.

Evaluators almost inevitably experience conflict in the course of conducting evaluation studies. This article first presents two theoretical frameworks from social psychology - conflict strategies theory and constructive conflict resolution theory - useful for constructively managing conflict in evaluation settings. Second, we discuss theory-derived skills related to structuring cooperative goals and tasks in evaluation studies as well as how to use integrative negotiation procedures to address disputes that arise during the evaluation process. Finally, we explain how these theories can provide evaluators with a lens through which to analyze evaluation contexts, thereby helping them to make wise decisions for effective evaluation practice.