Suchergebnisse

L'évaluateur doit porter attention aux distorsions qu'il contribue à créer lorsqu'il utilise l'entrevue comme méthode de collecte de données. L'évaluation est un exercice politique qui, placé dans un contexte politique, peut favoriser l'émergence de discours de résistance à l'objectivation. À partir des entrevues que nous avons effectuées lors de l'évaluation du processus d'implantation de l'initiative ONUSIDA d'accès aux médicaments au Chili, nous illustrons différentes tactiques que les acteurs utilisent et qui peuvent soit attirer la sympathie de l'évaluateur, soit faire obstacle à son besoin d'information. Nous présentons une méthode d'analyse que l'évaluateur peut utiliser pour redonner du sens aux discours de résistance.

Implementation evaluations, also called process evaluations, involve studying the development of programmes, and identifying and understanding their strengths and weaknesses. Undertaking an implementation evaluation offers insights into evaluation objectives, but does not help the researcher develop a research strategy. During the implementation analysis of the UNAIDS drug access initiative in Chile, the strategic analysis model developed by Crozier and Friedberg was used. However, a major incompatibility was noted between the procedure put forward by Crozier and Friedberg and the specific characteristics of the programme being evaluated. In this article, an adapted strategic analysis model for programme evaluation is proposed.

We are currently being challenged to urgently address the environmental crisis. Intervening in this complex ecology creates the need to adopt approaches that will reconcile natural and human systems, approaches for Planetary Health. In this article, we present a Planetary Health Framework as a conceptual dialogic approach for designing and evaluating interventions. Natural and human systems dimensions have been conceptualized in an integrated way, based on existing scientific knowledge. This framework is intended to be applied using a dialogic approach. We will also show, schematically, how the use of this approach can be overlaid on each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The overall aim of this article is to contribute to a transformation in our field, to expand our role from existing narrowly focused evaluation practices to taking into account in our work, how interventions do or do not make a contribution to building a better future for all.

In the last century, human-led activities have drastically altered natural systems. The environmental impacts of human activity are so deleterious to living species and our biosphere that geologists have named this new geological era the Anthropocene, from anthropos, human being. Responses to the Anthropocene era call for drastic changes in all domains of activity. As evaluators, we claim to work for social betterment. We have a responsibility to adapt our approaches and practices to respond to this environmental challenge. The aim of this article is to raise awareness on the need to develop new approaches for evaluators in the Anthropocene. We first describe what this state of urgency represents for humans, the international commitments to take action, the solutions that exist, and what responding to this environmental challenge means for our profession.

The use of evaluation results is at the core of evaluation theory and practice. Major debates in the field have emphasized the importance of both the evaluator's role and the evaluation process itself in fostering evaluation use. A recent systematic review of interventions aimed at influencing policy-making or organizational behavior through knowledge exchange offers a new perspective on evaluation use. We propose here a framework for better understanding the embedded relations between evaluation context, choice of an evaluation model and use of results. The article argues that the evaluation context presents conditions that affect both the appropriateness of the evaluation model implemented and the use of results.

In this article we defend the idea that theory-based evaluations—contribution analysis, logic analysis, and realist evaluation—are complementary components of a new theory in evaluation. We also posit that we are currently observing the emergence of a fifth generation in evaluation: the explanation generation. Theory-based evaluations have featured prominently in the discourse of evaluators since the mid-1980s. They have developed mainly in response to the need for evaluation of complex interventions. In this article we analyze certain approaches that have matured in their design and application. We use the framework of Shadish et al. to analyze the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of various theory-based approaches in evaluation to appraise their similarities and differences. We observe that all these approaches are grounded in critical realism. Similarities seen in their ontological, epistemological, and methodological positionings, as well as their complementarity in terms of the evaluative questions they address, suggest we may be observing the consolidation of a new theory in evaluation and the emergence of a fifth generation.

ABSTRACT The way in which we have structured our societies has made possible major advances in population health. However, this model, based on intensive exploitation of natural resources, is now the source of the greatest threats to human health. Today's environmental issues call for bringing to public health an ecological approach whose actions address not only population health, but also ecological, social, and economic changes - i.e., an ecosocial approach to health. Here we examine the implications, for public health action, of adopting such an approach.

Models that shift more responsibility onto researchers for the process of incorporating research results into decision-making have greatly gained in popularity during the past two decades. This shift has created a new area of research to identify the best ways to transfer academic results into the organizational and political arenas. However, evaluating the utilization of information coming out of a knowledge transfer (KT) initiative remains an enormous challenge. This article demonstrates how logic analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the utilization potential of KT initiatives. We present the case of the evaluation of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services, an innovative experiment in knowledge synthesis and transfer. The conclusions focus not only on the utilization potential of results coming out of the Research Collective, but also on the theoretical framework used, in order to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other knowledge transfer initiatives.

Models that shift more responsibility onto researchers for the process of incorporating research results into decision-making have greatly gained in popularity during the past two decades. This shift has created a new area of research to identify the best ways to transfer academic results into the organizational and political arenas. However, evaluating the utilization of information coming out of a knowledge transfer (KT) initiative remains an enormous challenge. This article demonstrates how logic analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the utilization potential of KT initiatives. We present the case of the evaluation of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services, an innovative experiment in knowledge synthesis and transfer. The conclusions focus not only on the utilization potential of results coming out of the Research Collective, but also on the theoretical framework used, in order to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other knowledge transfer initiatives.