uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Purposes and criteria in network governance evaluation: How far does standard evaluation vocabulary takes us?
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute for Housing and Urban Research. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Government.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute for Housing and Urban Research.
2012 (English)In: Evaluation, ISSN 1356-3890, E-ISSN 1461-7153, Vol. 18, no 1, 25-44 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Evaluation and network governance are both among the top-10 trendy concepts in public policy. But how are they related? In the present article, we ask how public sector interventions guided by a network governance doctrine are to be evaluated. If evaluation means systematic judgment of organization, content, administration, outputs and effects in public policy, then evaluators need concepts and analytical tools to assess these features and communicate their analyses. In the literature, interest in network modes of governance often goes together with a call for a renewed vocabulary for evaluation and policy analysis. In the article, we do not take this to be a fact. Instead we turn it into a question: How relevant and productive are established concepts and tools of evaluation theory for evaluating network governance? More specifically, we address the issues of purposes and merit criteria in evaluation of interventions fashioned according to the network governance doctrine. Though it takes some elaboration, our overall conclusion is that at least some standard evaluation concepts and approaches are still productive in delineating, analysing and prescribing how network governance can be evaluated. There are crucial accountability issues to raise, the goal-achievement criterion is not irrelevant and the meaning of stakeholder evaluation is elucidated when confronted with the ideas of the network governance doctrine.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 18, no 1, 25-44 p.
Keyword [en]
accountability, evaluation theory, goal-achievement criterion, network governance, stakeholder evaluation
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-174074DOI: 10.1177/1356389011431021ISI: 000208897800003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-174074DiVA: diva2:526255
Available from: 2012-05-11 Created: 2012-05-11 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(769 kB)144 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 769 kBChecksum SHA-512
749362f715be05ac7ea4df3a25a19706d2375d3b5f6860dce27820feaa68b37b56b42685c7335619520808d05891624eef1ec0a0f6ad3eaad696d6d6bc8d4bc4
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Hertting, NilsVedung, Evert

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hertting, NilsVedung, Evert
By organisation
Institute for Housing and Urban ResearchDepartment of Government
In the same journal
Evaluation
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 144 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 751 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf