CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 208Evaluation and Performance AssessmentPublic Policy and Administration ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems

Open access
Barnes, Marian, Matka, Elizabeth, Sullivan, Helen·2003·Evaluation
DOI 10.1177/13563890030093003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article discusses the challenges associated with the evaluation of complex policy initiatives, focusing on one element of the national evaluation of Health Action Zones in England: Building Capacity for Collaboration. It describes the multiple dimensions of complexity that characterize HAZs and considers the limitations of the Theory of Change approach in encompassing the diverse change processes that HAZs seek to promote. Drawing on social constructionist perspectives and from both complexity theory and new institutional theory, the authors propose that evaluators need not only to be able to work with change theories generated within such complex programmes, but also to apply `higher level' theory to an understanding of the way such programmes develop. They argue that the role of evaluators in `telling the story' is an important part of the evaluation challenge in such contexts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/13563890030093003

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bauld, L and K. Judge (2002) `Introduction: The Development of Health Action Zones', in L. Bauld and K. Judge (eds) Learning from Health Action Zones. Chichester: Aeneas Press .
  2. Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1973) The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin .
  3. Glendinning, G., M. Powell and K. Rummery, eds (2002) Partnerships under New Labour: a Third Way Approach to Delivering Welfare. Bristol: Policy Press .
  4. Immergut, E. (1992) Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
  5. Judge, K., M. Barnes, L. Bauld, M. Benzeval, A. Killoran, R. Robinson, R. Wigglesworth and H. Zeilig (1999) Health Action Zones: Learning to Make a Difference, Findings from a Preliminary Review of Health Action Zones and Proposals for a National Evaluation, PSSRU Discussion Paper 1815. Canterbury: University of Kent .
  6. Kauffman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe. London: Penguin .
  7. March, J. and J. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press .
  8. Travers, T. (1993) `Professionals and Local Government Reform - Not So Much Villains as Saviours', in G. Stoker (ed.) The Future of Professionalism in Local Government, pp. 37-48. Luton: LGMB .
  9. Williamson, O. E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 208

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Barnes, Marian
  • Matka, Elizabeth
  • Sullivan, Helen
ORCID
Sullivan, Helen
Venue
Evaluation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-07
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
265-284
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
DOI
10.1177/13563890030093003
OpenAlex
W2056268972
Cited by
208
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
9.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
Health Action Zones, theory of change, complexity theory, new institutionalism, social constructionism, evaluator role, program development, evidence-based policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review