IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/idsxxx/v46y2015i1p7-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Bob Williams

Abstract

All evaluation approaches have to address questions about their legitimacy, validity, relevance and usefulness. As the complexity of interventions is more widely acknowledged, impact evaluation appears to be especially vulnerable to these challenges. This article explores the potential of the systems field to address these vulnerabilities. The systems field is conceptualised as understanding interrelationships, engaging with multiple perspectives and reflecting on where boundaries are drawn in terms of those interrelationships and perspectives. This article argues that achieving a balance between these three elements is critical. An emphasis on interrelationships is likely to bring only limited (prosaic) benefits to impact evaluation as a whole. On the other hand, a strong emphasis on perspectives and boundaries could result in profound changes to the way in which impact evaluation is conceived and delivered. In particular, it could change the nature of the relationship between the evaluator and key stakeholders, especially funders and managers of interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bob Williams, 2015. "Prosaic or Profound? The Adoption of Systems Ideas by Impact Evaluation," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(1), pages 7-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:46:y:2015:i:1:p:7-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1759-5436.12117
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rohanna, Kristen L. & Christie, Christina A., 2023. "A problem-bound evaluation approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Gates, Emily F. & Madres, Joseph & Hall, Jori N. & Alvarez, Kayla Benitez, 2022. "It takes an ecosystem: Socioecological factors influencing equity-oriented evaluation in New England, U.S., 2021," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Martin Reynolds & Emily Gates & Richard Hummelbrunner & Mita Marra & Bob Williams, 2016. "Towards Systemic Evaluation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 662-673, September.
    4. Szijarto, Barbara & Bradley Cousins, J., 2019. "Mapping the practice of developmental evaluation: Insights from a concept mapping study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:idsxxx:v:46:y:2015:i:1:p:7-16. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-5012 .

    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.