IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v97y2023ics014971892300037x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interrogating assumptions about the relationship between service providers and recipients: Learning from a new service for survivors of In Care Abuse

Author

Listed:
  • Cook, Ailsa
  • Morton, Sarah
  • Henderson, Flora

Abstract

Understanding the dynamic relationship between service providers and the people who use their services is key to effective evaluation. This paper presents a practical approach to embedded evaluation that can be used by services to interrogate assumptions about relationships. The approach includes a simple framework for developing theories of change that centres relational aspects of the change process. This framework is complemented by a structured approach to surfacing risks and assumptions. Using the example of the evaluation of Future Pathways, a new and ground breaking service provided to people who experienced abuse or neglect as children In Care in Scotland, the paper describes how this approach was used in practice. Focusing in on assumptions identified by the service around trust, the paper describes the process undertaken to interrogate these assumptions through data collection with people using the service and staff. This process led to rich learning to support the development of the service as well as the identification of new elliptical assumptions. The paper concludes by sharing reflections on the learning from this work for the wider evaluation community highlighting the need for evaluators to take a relational approach to interrogating assumptions about relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Cook, Ailsa & Morton, Sarah & Henderson, Flora, 2023. "Interrogating assumptions about the relationship between service providers and recipients: Learning from a new service for survivors of In Care Abuse," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:97:y:2023:i:c:s014971892300037x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892300037X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102260?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. Archibald, Thomas & Sharrock, Guy & Buckley, Jane & Cook, Natalie, 2016. "Assumptions, conjectures, and other miracles: The application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 119-127.
    2. Stephen P Osborne & Zoe Radnor & Kirsty Strokosch, 2016. "Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 639-653, May.
    3. Mayne, John, 2023. "Assumptions in theories of change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    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. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Md Altab Hossin & Jie Du & Lei Mu & Isaac Owusu Asante, 2023. "Big Data-Driven Public Policy Decisions: Transformation Toward Smart Governance," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    3. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Manuel Alméstar & Sara Romero-Muñoz & Nieves Mestre & Uriel Fogué & Eva Gil & Amanda Masha, 2023. "(Un)Likely Connections between (Un)Likely Actors in the Art/NBS Co-Creation Process: Application of KREBS Cycle of Creativity to the Cyborg Garden Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, May.
    5. Buics, László & Eisinger Balassa, Boglárka, 2020. "Analyzing Public Service Processes from Customer and Employee Perspectives by Using Service Blueprinting and Business Process Modelling," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2020), Virtual Conference, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Virtual Conference, 10-12 September 2020, pages 195-211, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    6. Bartsits, Igor (Барциц, Игорь) & Borshchevskiy, Georgiy (Борщевский, Георгий) & Magomedov, Kerem (Магомедов, Керем), 2018. "Current State and Development Trends of the State Civil Service in Russia [Современное Состояние И Тенденции Развития Государственной Гражданской Службы В России: Аналитический Доклад]," Published Papers 011807, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    7. Bergerum, Carolina & Wolmesjö, Maria & Thor, Johan, 2022. "Organising and managing patient and public involvement to enhance quality improvement—Comparing a Swedish and a Dutch hospital," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 603-612.
    8. Pascal Frucquet & David Carassus & Didier Chabaud & Pierre Marin, 2021. "Influence of public policies of Smart Cities and Smart Territories on the renewal of local governance [L’influence des politiques publiques de Villes et Territoires Intelligents sur la rénovation d," Post-Print hal-03543436, HAL.
    9. Smotritskaya, I., 2023. "Public governance: Towards dialogue and cooperation?," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 61(4), pages 246-252.
    10. Maria Stella Righettini, 2021. "Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Bassi Andrea, 2023. "The Relationship Between Public Administration and Third Sector Organizations: Voluntary Failure Theory and Beyond," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(4), pages 385-404, October.
    12. Rocco Agrifoglio & Concetta Metallo & Primiano Nauta, 2021. "Understanding Knowledge Management in Public Organizations through the Organizational Knowing Perspective: a Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 137-156, March.
    13. Faiz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Marja Toivonen & Paul Windrum, 2018. "Understanding social innovation in services industries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 551-569, July.
    14. Aurelio Tommasetti & Riccardo Mussari & Gennaro Maione & Daniela Sorrentino, 2020. "Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector: Towards Public Value Co-Creation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    15. BARCEVICIUS Egidijus & CIBAITE Guonda & CODAGNONE Cristiano & GINEIKYTE Vaida & KLIMAVICIUTE Luka & LIVA Giovanni & MATULEVIC Loreta & MISURACA Gianluca & VANINI Irene, 2019. "Exploring Digital Government transformation in the EU," JRC Research Reports JRC118857, Joint Research Centre.
    16. McConnell, Jesse, 2019. "Adoption for adaptation: A theory-based approach for monitoring a complex policy initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 214-223.
    17. Carolina Isaza Espinosa & Juan Carlos Henao & Santiago Tellez Cañas, 2021. "Disrupción tecnológica, transformación digital y sociedad. Tomo II, Políticas y públicas y regulación en las tecnologías disruptivas," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1281, October.
    18. Michael John Norton, 2021. "Co-Production within Child and Adolescent Mental Health: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-22, November.
    19. Rocco Palumbo & Stefania Vezzosi & Paola Picciolli & Alessandro Landini & Carmela Annarumma & Rosalba Manna, 2018. "Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 15(3), pages 371-391, September.
    20. Floriana Fusco & Marta Marsilio & Chiara Guglielmetti, 2018. "La co-production in sanit?: un?analisi bibliometrica," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(108), pages 35-54.

    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:97:y:2023:i:c:s014971892300037x. 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.