Advocacy Outcomes Are Not Self-Evident: The Quest for Outcome Identification

Bodille Arensman*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Advocacy outcomes are not self-evident. Identifying advocacy outcomes is extremely difficult because they are often intangible, arising from (personal) interactions, and they are not always traceable. This challenges conventional evaluation methods, which is recognized in the advocacy evaluation literature. However, current evaluation methods claim to do justice to these complexities
while in reality, these methods assume outcomes are identified logically following from actions. Based on empirical findings from a multisited ethnographic study of an advocacy evaluation, this article questions these underlying assumptions and empirically demonstrates how advocacy outcomes are socially and politically constructed, leaving room for interpretation
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages18
JournalAmerican Journal of Evaluation
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 27 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

evaluation
Social Justice
justice
interpretation
Advocacy
interaction
Evaluation method
Evaluation
literature
Intangibles
Justice
Interaction

Cite this

@article{29f308eb17c342a796876249b77f8d59,
title = "Advocacy Outcomes Are Not Self-Evident: The Quest for Outcome Identification",
abstract = "Advocacy outcomes are not self-evident. Identifying advocacy outcomes is extremely difficult because they are often intangible, arising from (personal) interactions, and they are not always traceable. This challenges conventional evaluation methods, which is recognized in the advocacy evaluation literature. However, current evaluation methods claim to do justice to these complexitieswhile in reality, these methods assume outcomes are identified logically following from actions. Based on empirical findings from a multisited ethnographic study of an advocacy evaluation, this article questions these underlying assumptions and empirically demonstrates how advocacy outcomes are socially and politically constructed, leaving room for interpretation",
author = "Bodille Arensman",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1177/1098214019855137",
language = "English",
journal = "American Journal of Evaluation",
issn = "1098-2140",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",

}

Advocacy Outcomes Are Not Self-Evident: The Quest for Outcome Identification. / Arensman, Bodille.

In: American Journal of Evaluation, 27.09.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advocacy Outcomes Are Not Self-Evident: The Quest for Outcome Identification

AU - Arensman, Bodille

PY - 2019/9/27

Y1 - 2019/9/27

N2 - Advocacy outcomes are not self-evident. Identifying advocacy outcomes is extremely difficult because they are often intangible, arising from (personal) interactions, and they are not always traceable. This challenges conventional evaluation methods, which is recognized in the advocacy evaluation literature. However, current evaluation methods claim to do justice to these complexitieswhile in reality, these methods assume outcomes are identified logically following from actions. Based on empirical findings from a multisited ethnographic study of an advocacy evaluation, this article questions these underlying assumptions and empirically demonstrates how advocacy outcomes are socially and politically constructed, leaving room for interpretation

AB - Advocacy outcomes are not self-evident. Identifying advocacy outcomes is extremely difficult because they are often intangible, arising from (personal) interactions, and they are not always traceable. This challenges conventional evaluation methods, which is recognized in the advocacy evaluation literature. However, current evaluation methods claim to do justice to these complexitieswhile in reality, these methods assume outcomes are identified logically following from actions. Based on empirical findings from a multisited ethnographic study of an advocacy evaluation, this article questions these underlying assumptions and empirically demonstrates how advocacy outcomes are socially and politically constructed, leaving room for interpretation

U2 - 10.1177/1098214019855137

DO - 10.1177/1098214019855137

M3 - Article

JO - American Journal of Evaluation

JF - American Journal of Evaluation

SN - 1098-2140

ER -