Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Collaborative Governance Assessment× | Realist Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare≠ | Public Administration | Public Policy |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 2008 | 1997 |
| Autors≠ | Chris Ansell & Alison Gash | Ray Pawson & Nick Tilley |
| Tips≠ | Process-based governance assessment framework | Theory-driven, generative evaluation approach |
| Pirmavots≠ | Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. DOI ↗ | Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9780761950097 |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | Collaborative Governance Analysis, Ansell-Gash Governance Framework, Multi-Stakeholder Governance Assessment | Realistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley Evaluation |
| Saistītās | 4 | 4 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | Collaborative governance assessment is a framework for analysing arrangements in which public agencies and non-state stakeholders deliberate together to make or implement public policy by consensus. Synthesised by Chris Ansell and Alison Gash in their 2008 article from a meta-analysis of over a hundred cases, it identifies the starting conditions, institutional design and facilitative leadership that feed into an iterative collaborative process and ultimately shape outcomes. The framework treats collaboration not as a single event but as a cycle of face-to-face dialogue, trust-building, shared understanding and intermediate commitments. Its purpose is to explain why some multi-stakeholder partnerships succeed while others stall or collapse. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|