Complex, but not quite complex enough: The turn to the complexity sciences in evaluation scholarship

Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 160-175

  Mowles, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complex adaptive systems theory; Complexity sciences; Emergence; Social theory; Systems theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905031829     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389014527885     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Allen P (1998a) Evolving complexity in social science. In: Altman G and Koch WA (eds), Systems: New Paradigms for the Human Sciences. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
2. Allen P (1998b) Modelling complex economic evolution. In: Schweitzer F and Silverberg G (eds), Selbstorganisation. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.
3. Allen P, Strathern M and Baldwin J (2006) Evolutionary drive, new understandings of change in evolutionary systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organisation 8(2): 2-19.
4. Aspen Institute (1997) Voices from the Field: Learning from the Early Work of Comprehensive Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
5. Banerjee A and Duflo E (2012) Poor Economics: Barefoot Hedge-fund Managers, DIY Doctors and the Surprising Truth about Life on less than $1 a Day. London: Penguin.
6. Barnes M, Matka E and Sullivan H (2003) Evidence, understanding and complexity in non-linear systems. Evaluation 9(3): 265-84.
7. Bhaskar R (1978) A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd edn. Brighton: Harvester Press.
8. Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.
9. Callaghan G (2008) Evaluation and negotiated order: developing the application of complexity theory. Evaluation 14(4): 399-411.
10. Chen H and Rossi P (1989) Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Programme Planning 12(4): 299-306.
11. Chia R (1998) From complexity science to complex thinking: organization as simple location. Organization 5(3): 341-70.
12. Connell A, Kubisch C, Schorr LB and Weiss C (eds) (1995) New Approaches to Evaluating Communtiy Initiatives: Vol 1, Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
13. Davies R (2004) Scale, complexity and the representation of theories of change. Evaluation 10(1): 101-21.
14. Davies R (2005) Scale, complexity and the representation of theories of change part II. Evaluation 11(2): 133-49.
15. De Marchi S and Page SE (2008) Agent-based modelling. In: Box-Steffenmeier JM, Brady HE and Collier D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Dewey J ([1929] 2005)The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Kessinger Publishing.
17. Elias N ([1939] 2000) The Civilising Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
18. Elias N (1978) What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.
19. Fleck L ([1934] 1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Forss K and Schwartz R (2011) Introduction. In: Forss K, Marra M and Schwartz R (eds), Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond: Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol.18. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
21. Forss K, Marra M and Schwartz R (eds) (2011) Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond: Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol.18. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
22. Funnell S and Rogers P (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23. Glouberman S and Zimmerman B (2002) Complicated and complex systems: what would successful reform of medicare look like? Discussion Paper No. 8: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Plexus Institute. URL: http://www.plexusinstitute.org/resource/collection/6528ED29-9907-4BC7-8D00-8DC907679FED/ComplicatedAndComplexSystems-ZimmermanReport_ Medicare_reform.pdf
24. Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Ashcroft R and Parsons W (2011) Why national ehealth programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers' reluctance to learn from history. The Millbank Review 89(4): 533-63.
25. Hedström P (2005) Dissecting the Social: on the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Hedström P (2008) Studying mechanisms to strengthen causal inferences in quantitative research. In: Box-Steffenmeier JM, Brady HE and Collier D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Hummelbrunner R (2010) Beyond logframe: critique, variations and alternatives. In: Fujita N (ed.), Beyond Logframe: Using Systems Concepts in Evaluation (Issues and Prospects for Evaluation of International Development-Series 4). Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
28. Kuhn T ([1962] 1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29. Ling T (2012) Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation 18(1): 79-91.
30. Marra M (2011) Some insights from complexity science for the evaluation of complex policies. In: Forss K, Marra M and Schwartz R (eds), Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond: Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol. 18. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31. Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32. Miller J and Page SE (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33. Mowles C (2011) Rethinking Management: Radical Insights from the Complexity Sciences. London: Gower.
34. Mowles C (2013) Evaluation, complexity, uncertainty: theories of change and some alternatives. In: Wallace T, Porter F and Ralph-Bowman M (eds), Aid, NGOs and the Reality of Women's Lives: A Perfect Storm. Rugby:Practical Action Publications.
35. Mowles C, Stacey R and Griffin D (2008) What contribution can insights from the complexity sciences make to the theory and practice of development management? Journal of International Development 20(6): 804-20.
36. Nagel T (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Parsons T ([1923] 1991) The Social System. London: Routledge.
38. Patton MQ (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
39. Pawson R (2006) Evidence-based Policy. London: SAGE.
40. Pawson R and Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.
41. Prigogine I and Nicolis G (1977) Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems. London: Wiley.
42. Ray TS (1992) An approach to the synthesis of life. In: Langton G, Taylor C, Doyne Farmer J and Rasmussen S (eds), Artificial Life II. Santa Fe Institute, Studies in the Sources of Complexity, Vol. 10. Reading: Addison Wesley.
43. Reynolds CW (1987) Flocks, herds and schools: a distributed behaviour model. Proceedings of Siggraph '87. Computer Graphics 21(4): 25-34.
44. Reynolds M and Holwell S (2010) Systems Approaches to Managing Change: a Practical Guide. London: Springer Verlag.
45. Rogers P (2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 14(1): 29-48.
46. Rogers P (2011) Implications of complicated and complex characteristics for key tasks in evaluation. In
47. Forss K, Marra M and Schwartz R (2011) Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond: Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol. 18. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
48. Sanderson I (2000) Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation 6(4): 433-54.
49. Sanderson I (2009) Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies 57: 699-719.
50. Scott JC (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51. Smith MF (1989) Evaluability Assessment: A Practical Approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
52. Spicer N and Smith P (2008) Evaluating complex, area-based initiatives in a context of change: the experience of the children's fund initiative. Evaluation 14(1): 75-90.
53. Spinatsch M (2011) Evaluating a complex policy in a complex context: the elusive success of the swiss smoking prevention policy. In: Forss K, Marra M and Schwartz R (eds), Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond: Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol. 18. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
54. Stacey R (1992) Managing the Unknowable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55. Stacey R (2011) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, 6th edn. London: Prentice Hall.
56. Stacey R (2012) Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management: Meeting the Challenge of Complexity. London: Routledge.
57. Stacey R, Griffin D and Shaw P (2000) Complexity and Management: fad or radical challenge to systems thinking. London: Routledge.
58. Stame N (2004) Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation 10: 58-76.
59. Stern E (2008) Editorial. Evaluation 14(1): 5-7.
60. Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies R and Befani B (2012) Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations, Working Paper 38. London: Department for International Development.
61. Taylor C (1999) To follow a rule. In: Shusterman R (ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
62. Tsoukas H (2006) Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Tsoukas H (2009) Craving for generality and small-n studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In: Buchanan DA and Bryman A (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: SAGE, 285-301.
64. Tsoukas H and Hatch MJ (2001) Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations 54(8): 879-1013.
65. Van der Knaap P (2011) Sense and complexity: initiatives in response to performance audits. Evaluation 17(4): 351-63.
66. Weiss C (1995) Nothing so practical as a good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: Connell A, Kubisch C, Schorr LB and Weiss C (eds), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Vol 1, Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
67. Weiss C (1997) Theory-based evaluation: past, present and future. In: Rog DJ (ed.), Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
68. Westhorp G (2012) Using complexity-consistent theory for evaluating complex systems. Evaluation 18(4): 405-20.
69. Williams B (2010) Systems thinking and capacity development in the international arena. In: Fujita N (ed.), Beyond Logframe: Using Systems Concepts in Evaluation (Issues and Prospects for Evaluation of International Development-Series 4). Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
70. Wilson B (2001) Soft Systems Methodology, Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.