IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/46365.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation logics in the third sector

Author

Listed:
  • Hall, Matthew

Abstract

In this paper I provide a preliminary sketch of the types of logics of evaluation in the third sector. I begin by tracing the ideals that are evident in three well-articulated yet quite different third sector evaluation practices: the logical framework, most significant change stories, and social return on investment. Drawing on this analysis, I then tentatively outline three logics of evaluation: a scientific evaluation logic (systematic observation, observable and measurable evidence, objective and robust experimental procedures), a bureaucratic evaluation logic (complex, step-by-step procedures, analysis of intended objectives), and a learning evaluation logic (openness to change, wide range of perspectives, lay rather than professional expertise). These logics draw attention to differing conceptions of knowledge and expertise and their resource implications, and have important consequences for the professional status of the practitioners, consultants, and policy makers that contribute to and/or are involved in evaluations in third sector organizations

Suggested Citation

  • Hall, Matthew, 2014. "Evaluation logics in the third sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46365, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:46365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46365/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Jacobs & Chris Barnett & Richard Ponsford, 2010. "Three Approaches to Monitoring: Feedback Systems, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Logical Frameworks," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(6), pages 36-44, November.
    2. Lounsbury, Michael, 2008. "Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(4-5), pages 349-361.
    3. Nicholls, Alex, 2009. "'We do good things, don't we?': 'Blended Value Accounting' in social entrepreneurship," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 755-769, August.
    4. Mick Howes, 1992. "Linking paradigms and practice: Key issues in the appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of British NGO Projects," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 375-396, July.
    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. Hall, Matthew & Millo, Yuval & Barman, E, 2015. "Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62354, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. O’Leary, Susan & Smith, David, 2020. "Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in non-governmental organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Neelesh Kumar, 2020. "Social Business Model and its Efficacy: A Case Study on Agroforestry in the Indian Context," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 6(1), pages 195-219, January.
    4. Marco Bellucci & Carmela Nitti & Chiara Chimirri & Luca Bagnoli, 2019. "Rendicontare l?impatto sociale. Metodologie, indicatori e tre casi di sperimentazione in Toscana," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(3), pages 166-187.
    5. Tae-Hwan Kim & Hoon Hong & Jonghyun Park & Chung Sik Yoo & Jongick Jang, 2017. "Statistical Estimation of the Casual Effect of Scoial Economy on Subjective Well-Being," Working papers 2017rwp-104, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    6. Julien Kleszczowski & Nathalie Raulet‐Croset, 2022. "Evaluating social impact in practice: Constructing a response to institutional demand in a French nonprofit organization," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(2), pages 357-380, June.
    7. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2017. "The expressive role of performance measurement systems: a field study of a mental health development project," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46364, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Millo, Yuval & Barman, Emily & Hall, Matthew, 2016. "Accounting measurement tools and their impact on managerial decision making," economic sociology. perspectives and conversations, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, vol. 17(2), pages 17-23.
    9. Matthew Hall & Yuval Millo & Emily Barman, 2015. "Who and What Really Counts? Stakeholder Prioritization and Accounting for Social Value," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 907-934, November.
    10. Mitchell George E. & Calabrese Thad D., 2020. "Instrumental Philanthropy, Nonprofit Theory, and Information Costs," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Clerkin, Brendan & Quinn, Martin, 2021. "Institutional agents missing in action?: Management accounting at non-governmental organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2017. "The expressive role of performance measurement systems: A field study of a mental health development project," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 60-75.

    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. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2013. "Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51294, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Ball, Amanda & Craig, Russell, 2010. "Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 283-293.
    3. Murphy Patrick J. & Pollack Jeff & Nagy Brian & Rutherford Matthew & Coombes Susan, 2019. "Risk Tolerance, Legitimacy, and Perspective: Navigating Biases in Social Enterprise Evaluations," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Luigi Corvo & Lavinia Pastore & Arianna Manti & Daniel Iannaci, 2021. "Mapping Social Impact Assessment Models: A Literature Overview for a Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Lepori, Benedetto & Montauti, Martina, 2020. "Bringing the organization back in: Flexing structural responses to competing logics in budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Tammar B. Zilber, 2011. "Institutional Multiplicity in Practice: A Tale of Two High-Tech Conferences in Israel," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1539-1559, December.
    7. Benjamin Dreveton & Evelyne Lande & Marine Portal, 2011. "L'instrumentation des activités publiques. Le cas d'une université," Post-Print hal-00650424, HAL.
    8. Palermo, Tommaso, 2014. "Accountability and expertise in public sector risk management: a case study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59948, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Maria Rosa De Giacomo & Raimund Bleischwitz, 2020. "Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3352-3369, December.
    10. Hoque, Zahirul, 2014. "20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-59.
    11. Binh Bui & Carolyn Fowler, 2022. "Carbon controls in a New Zealand electricity utility: An application of theoretical triangulation," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4423-4451, December.
    12. Maxim Voronov & Mary Ann Glynn & Klaus Weber, 2022. "Under the Radar: Institutional Drift and Non‐Strategic Institutional Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 819-842, May.
    13. Bouten, Lies & Everaert, Patricia, 2015. "Social and environmental reporting in Belgium: ‘Pour vivre heureux, vivons cachés’," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 24-43.
    14. Shaker A. Zahra & Lance R. Newey & Yong Li, 2014. "On the Frontiers: The Implications of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(1), pages 137-158, January.
    15. Marta Solórzano-García & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2019. "Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Aidin Salamzadeh & Zahra Arasti & Ghanbar Mohamadi Elyasi, 2017. "Creation of ICT-Based Social Start-Ups in Iran: A Multiple Case Study," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 25(01), pages 97-122, March.
    17. Allan Hansen, 2011. "Relating performative and ostensive management accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(2), pages 108-138, June.
    18. Lopez-Cozar, C. & Priede, T. & Rodríguez-Lopez, A., 2015. "Evaluating The Legal Environment For Social Entrepreneurship In America And Europe," Revista Galega de Economía, University of Santiago de Compostela. Faculty of Economics and Business., vol. 24(1), pages 101-110.
    19. Gibbon, Jane, 2012. "Understandings of accountability: an autoethnographic account using metaphor," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 201-212.
    20. Cerbone, Dannielle & Maroun, Warren, 2020. "Materiality in an integrated reporting setting: Insights using an institutional logics framework," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    evaluation; logics; performance measurement; accountability; expertise;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:46365. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.