• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在充满争议的领域进行评估:美国背景下的挑战、方法与途径

Conducting evaluation in contested terrain: challenges, methodology and approach in an American context.

作者信息

Cohen Barry B

机构信息

Rainbow Research, Inc., Minneapolis 55408, MN, USA.

出版信息

Eval Program Plann. 2012 Feb;35(1):189-98. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.11.002. Epub 2010 Dec 21.

DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.11.002
PMID:21256592
Abstract

Using case examples, the author describes circumstances under which violence and conflict, overt and covert, have impinged on his evaluation field work. When fear is pervasive, it constrains people's ability and willingness to participate in an evaluation and their candor if they do. It can also be dangerous. Safety and well-being of participants and researchers in his view take priority over the evaluation's goals. Evaluation involving people who are survivors of violence, torture and conflict requires special sensitivity and examples are offered of appropriate methodologies. Stakeholders in evaluations presumably have beneficent interest in a program's success. However in conflict situations 'malevolent' stakeholders, who standing to gain from a project's failure, will actively try to thwart it. Undermining the evaluation as well and impugning the evaluator's objectivity, skill, knowledge and credibility are among the tactics they employ. Evaluators are urged to stay attuned to field conditions, consider alternative methods and locations for collecting data and be self-conscious and deliberate about how their study and role are defined and understood by contending parties.

摘要

作者通过案例,描述了暴力和冲突(公开的和隐蔽的)对其评估实地工作造成影响的情况。当恐惧弥漫时,它会限制人们参与评估的能力和意愿,以及他们参与评估时的坦诚程度。这也可能很危险。在他看来,参与者和研究人员的安全与福祉优先于评估目标。涉及暴力、酷刑和冲突幸存者的评估需要特别的敏感性,并提供了适当方法的示例。评估中的利益相关者大概对项目的成功有着善意的兴趣。然而,在冲突情况下,“恶意”的利益相关者(他们会从项目失败中获利)会积极试图阻挠项目。破坏评估以及诋毁评估者的客观性、技能、知识和可信度是他们采用的策略之一。敦促评估者密切关注实地情况,考虑收集数据的替代方法和地点,并自觉且审慎地思考竞争各方如何界定和理解他们的研究及角色。

相似文献

1
Conducting evaluation in contested terrain: challenges, methodology and approach in an American context.在充满争议的领域进行评估:美国背景下的挑战、方法与途径
Eval Program Plann. 2012 Feb;35(1):189-98. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.11.002. Epub 2010 Dec 21.
2
Six Sigma: not for the faint of heart.六西格玛:并非胆小者所能驾驭。
Radiol Manage. 2003 Mar-Apr;25(2):40-53.
3
Being practical, being safe: doing evaluations in contested spaces.注重实际,确保安全:在充满争议的领域进行评估。
Eval Program Plann. 2012 Feb;35(1):206-17. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.04.001. Epub 2011 May 13.
4
Empowerment evaluation: building prevention science and organizational capacity to prevent sexual violence.赋权评估:构建预防科学与预防性暴力的组织能力
Health Promot Pract. 2009 Jan;10(1 Suppl):71S-73S. doi: 10.1177/1524839908329375.
5
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.人类健康与环境风险的风险管理框架。
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.
6
[Dangerous states and mental health disorders: perceptions and reality].[危险状态与精神健康障碍:认知与现实]
Encephale. 2010;36(3 Suppl):21-5. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7006(10)70014-2.
7
Introduction.引言。
Eval Program Plann. 2012 Feb;35(1):139-47. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.12.003. Epub 2010 Dec 31.
8
Where do we go from here? Interim analysis to forge ahead in violence prevention.我们从这里何去何从?进行中期分析以在预防暴力方面取得进展。
J Trauma. 2009 Dec;67(6):1169-75. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181bdb78a.
9
Evaluating food stamp nutrition education: a view from the field of program evaluation.评估食品券营养教育:项目评估领域的视角
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006 Jan-Feb;38(1):12-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.007.
10
Compliance to a Workplace Violence Prevention Program in small businesses.小企业对工作场所暴力预防计划的遵守情况。
Am J Prev Med. 2004 May;26(4):276-83. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.01.004.

引用本文的文献

1
Peritraumatic Behavior Questionnaire - Observer Rated: Validation of the objective version of a measure for combat-related peritraumatic stress.创伤后行为问卷-观察者评定版:一种针对战斗相关创伤后应激的客观测量工具的验证。
World J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 22;6(2):226-32. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v6.i2.226.