A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12

Six Guiding Principles for Evaluating Mode-2 Strategies for Sustainable Development

“…As CAS theory states, knowing the factors that influence a system does not mean we can control these factors and expect predictable outcomes (Parsons, 2007). In the field of evaluation too, the analysis of (causal) links between policy interventions and their outcomes is considered challenging (e.g., see Perrin, 2002), particularly when complex problems or programs are concerned (e.g., Dyehouse, Bennet, Harbor, Childress, & Dark, 2009;Forrest, 2007;Patton, 2008;Williams & Imam, 2007).…”

“…A mode-2 approach not only requires a flexible and context sensitive methodology but also an interdisciplinary team with interactional expertise of the fields it operates in (Collins & Evans, 2002), competences in project, process, knowledge, and network management, and support from its commissionaires. What makes it particularly difficult, however, is the power of prevailing (Cabrera, Colosi, & Lobdell, 2008;Churchman, 1970;Dyehouse et al, 2009) and CAS (Eoyang, 2007;Parsons, 2007). Reflecting and learning are therefore essential features of mode-2 approaches to sustainable development (see, e.g., Armitage, Marschke, & Plummer, 2008;Hendriks & Grin, 2007) and can be strengthened by corresponding approaches to evaluation (e.g., Burns, 2007;Imam, LaGoy, & Williams, 2007;Midgley, 2007).…”

Future-oriented impact assessment: Supporting strategic decision-making in complex socio-technical environments

“…Logic models are widely used, especially in program evaluations, and employing concepts such as input, activities, output, outcome/impact and effectiveness 1 in order to assess the contribution, relevance and performance of policy instruments. Logic models assume a linear relationship between program resources, activities and outcomes, these different components being connected through pre-determined pathways (Dyehouse et al, 2009). Typically logic models will articulate 'assumptions' that are the basis for the intervention achieving its goals as well as 'risk' factors that may interfere with the achievement of anticipated outcomes and impacts (Kellogg Foundation, 2004) This evaluation traditional creates its own challenges.…”

“…Guba and Lincoln, 1989) and there has been much debate and increasing interest in systems thinking in evaluation during recent years (e.g. Cabrera et al, 2008;Dyehouse et al, 2009;Funnel and Rogers, 2011;Mayne, 2012;Patton, 2011;Williams and Hummelbrunner, 2011). However, it is not yet a 'mainstream' approach and remains obscure to many evaluators (Hargreaves and Podems, 2012).…”

Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Sustainability of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Projects in Kenya

“…An intervention is put in place in consideration of its inputs, its expected outcomes, agreed relationships between them, and mechanisms relating to expected programme outlook at the end and how it will influence the next stage, however this does not make evaluator to control the factors (Chen, 1990;Rosas, 2005;Yampolskaya, Nesman, Hernandez, & Koch, 2004;Patton, 2008;Christie & Alkin, 2003;Parsons, 2007). It is not an easy task to determine link between policy interventions and their outcomes since academic theories are not at all times translated into practice without the community and other stakeholders" full participation (Perrin, 2002;Dyehouse, Bennet, Harbor, Childress, & Dark, 2009;Forrest, 2007;Patton, 2008;Imam et al, 2007;Friedman, 2001;Schön, 1974, 1978) …”