Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Network Governance Analysis× | Realist Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo≠ | Public Administration | Public Policy |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine≠ | 2008 | 1997 |
| Ideatore≠ | Keith G. Provan & Patrick Kenis | Ray Pawson & Nick Tilley |
| Tipo≠ | Interorganizational network analysis framework | Theory-driven, generative evaluation approach |
| Fonte seminale≠ | Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. DOI ↗ | Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9780761950097 |
| Alias | Governance Network Analysis, Public Network Governance Assessment, Collaborative Governance Network Analysis, Interorganizational Governance Network Analysis | Realistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley Evaluation |
| Correlati | 4 | 4 |
| Sintesi≠ | Network governance analysis studies how public problems are addressed not by single hierarchical agencies but by networks of interdependent organizations — government bodies, nonprofits, firms and community groups — coordinating to deliver services or make policy. It combines the relational tools of social network analysis with Keith Provan and Patrick Kenis's influential 2008 typology of network governance, which distinguishes shared (participant-governed) networks, lead-organization-governed networks, and network administrative organizations. By mapping the structure of ties, computing network metrics, classifying the governance mode and relating these to outcomes, the method explains how a collaborative network is held together and why it performs as it does. | Realist evaluation is a theory-driven approach to evaluating programs and policies that asks not simply 'does it work?' but 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?'. Developed by Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley in their 1997 book Realistic Evaluation, it treats interventions as theories incarnate: programs offer resources or opportunities that trigger underlying mechanisms of reasoning and response in participants, and those mechanisms only fire in particular contexts. The unit of analysis is the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configuration, and the goal is to build and refine middle-range theory that explains differential outcomes across settings. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|