Affiliation:
1. University of Minnesota
Abstract
Situational complexity is the distinction between simple, technically complicated, socially complicated, and complex situations. Programs that operate in simple situations are usually able to follow a prescribed course of action, or recipe, while programs operating in more complicated or complex situations must be flexible and responsive. In this article, the authors present findings from an exploratory, multiple-case study of the credibility of evidence in four distinct program situations ranging from simple to complex. Key informant interviews were conducted with 16 key informants, both internal and external to Extension. The findings were generally that the more complex the situation, the more likely that flexible or mixed-methods approaches were employed to strengthen program credibility. Across all the cases, the relationships that Extension educators have built with stakeholders played a pivotal role in building credibility of evidence. We conclude that sometimes situational complexity matters, sometimes methods matter, sometimes reporting style matters, but what always matters is the trusting relationship between the delivery organization and the stakeholder.
Publisher
Mississippi State University Libraries - DIGITAL COMMONS JOURNALS
Reference31 articles.
1. Becher, E. H., Cronin, S., McCann, E., Olson, K. A., Powell, S., & Marczak, M. S. (2015). Parents Forever: Evaluation of an online divorce education program. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 56(4), 261–276.
2. Becher, E. H., McGuire, J. K., McCann, E. M., Powell, S., Cronin, S. E., & Deenanath, V. (2018). Extension-based divorce education: A quasi-experimental design study of the Parents Forever program. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 59(8), 633–652.
3. Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 1–12.
4. Chazdon, S., Emery, M., Hansen, D., Higgins, L., & Sero, R. (2017). A field guide to ripple effects mapping. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.lib.umn.edu/publishing/monographs/program-evaluation-series#Book%202
5. Chazdon, S., & Paine, N. (2014). Evaluating for public value: Clarifying the relationship between public value and program evaluation. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 2(2), 100–119.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献