Inclusive rigour for complexity

Chambers, Robert

doi:10.1080/19439342.2015.1068356

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Influential work by practitioners and academics included: Forss et al (2011); Marra (2011); Midgley (2000); Reynolds (2014); Reynolds and Williams (2012a); Williams and Hummelbrunner (2010); and Williams and Imam (2007). A growing number of people embraced STCS in the field of international intervention, research and evaluation development such as: Chambers (2015); Bamberger et al (2008); Burns and Worsley (2015); Ison (2008); Patton (2011); and Williams and Hummelbrunner (2010). These thinkers represent the movement away from the comfort of linear ‘cause and effect’ frameworks and ‘traditional’ evaluation practices that centered on an intervention’s log frame, logic model, programme theory or linear theory of change to develop findings, conclusions and recommendations (Bamberger and Segone, 2011).…”

Section: The Foundations Of Inclusive Systemic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for the SDGs: Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs)

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of the United Nation's 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, there is a call for more methodologies to understand and evaluate combinations of these global challenges, their integrated nature and their complexities. Accordingly, UN Women Independent Evaluation Office along with Australian and American researchers have written and piloted a new evaluation guide: Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (ISE4GEMs): A new approach for the SDG era (2018). Referred to as the 'ISE4GEMs', this guide is an original piece of work that brings together transdisciplinary evaluation methods, rethinks systemic evaluation methodology and introduces the Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs) framework. This article provides a summary of the key theoretical concepts that have been synthesized from systems thinking, social and ecological sciences to produce process guidance.

show abstract

Section: The Foundations Of Inclusive Systemic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for the SDGs: Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs)

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social network analysis was used as a methodological approach to explore how information flows between knowledge holders as well as the power and agency that is involved in knowledge production and exchange processes. We considered the intended nature of participatory processes in research more broadly, which attempt to offer ethical, adaptive, inclusive, and reflexive methodologies for empowering the holders of multiple and diverse knowledges [22,23,[72][73][74][75][76]. Throughout the entire research processes, a reflexive research journal was kept by the lead investigator to reflect on positionality-as non-Indigenous, mostly non-local, researchers-and how this may have influenced the process and these findings.…”

Section: Study Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating climate in Ugandan health and subsistence food systems: where diverse knowledges meet

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The effects of food insecurity linked to climate change will be exacerbated in subsistence communities that are dependent upon food systems for their livelihoods and sustenance. Place-and community-based forms of surveillance are important for growing an equitable evidence base that integrates climate, food, and health information as well as informs our understanding of how climate change impacts health through local and Indigenous subsistence food systems. Methods We present a case-study from southwestern Uganda with Batwa and Bakiga subsistence communities in Kanungu District. We conducted 22 key informant interviews to map what forms of monitoring and knowledge exist about health and subsistence food systems as they relate to seasonal variability. A participatory mapping exercise accompanied key informant interviews to identify who holds knowledge about health and subsistence food systems. Social network theory and analysis methods were used to explore how information flows between knowledge holders as well as the power and agency that is involved in knowledge production and exchange processes. Results This research maps existing networks of trusted relationships that are already used for integrating diverse knowledges, information, and administrative action. Narratives reveal inventories of ongoing and repeated cycles of observations, interpretations, evaluations, and adjustments that make up existing health and subsistence food monitoring and response. These networks of local health and subsistence food systems were not supported by distinct systems of climate and meteorological information. Our findings demonstrate how integrating surveillance systems is not just about what types of information we monitor, but also who and how knowledges are connected through existing networks of monitoring and response. Conclusion Applying conventional approaches to surveillance, without deliberate consideration of the broader contextual and relational processes, can lead to the re-marginalization of peoples and the reproduction of inequalities in power between groups of people. We anticipate that our findings can be used to inform the initiation of a place-based integrated climate-food-health surveillance system in Kanungu District as well as other contexts with a rich diversity of knowledges and existing forms of monitoring and response.

show abstract

“…As a result, the ‘role of discovery and invention’ is suppressed (Turnbull, 2006: 9). If complex social issues are only seen through one particular lens, then the capacity for learning is limited (Chambers, 2015). Decontextualised evaluation set within pre-determined boundaries limits the potential for learning beyond these frames.…”

Section: Contextualised Evaluation For Critical Social Policy: a Discmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘We know it works. . .’: The Troubled Families Programme and the pre-determined boundary judgements of decontextualised policy evaluation

Silver

Crossley

2019

Critical Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws on the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) to highlight the ways in which particular contexts – such as socioeconomic and symbolic structures – are neglected in forms of evaluation with an establishment orientation. The article problematises two key aspects of decontextualised evaluation: firstly, the privileging of pre-determined relations of cause and effect; and secondly, the unproblematized framing of policy problems. More contextualised forms of evaluation are presented as a way to open up boundaries of investigation. Lastly, it is argued that an anti-naturalist foundation for evaluation can broaden the scope of learning beyond the original framing of a policy.

show abstract

Inclusive rigour for complexity

Cited by 28 publications

References 21 publications

Towards an Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for the SDGs: Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs)

Towards an Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for the SDGs: Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs)

Integrating climate in Ugandan health and subsistence food systems: where diverse knowledges meet

‘We know it works. . .’: The Troubled Families Programme and the pre-determined boundary judgements of decontextualised policy evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About