Search

Despite ongoing discussions on the need to improve the conceptualization and measurement of administrative burden, several conceptual problems remain. This study offers the first systematic analysis and evaluation of this increasingly central public management concept. Using an ontological-semantic approach, I show that the current conceptualization fails to fully and directly account for individuals' onerous experiences. I address five interrelated issues, including the overlap of cost categories and the conflation of state actions with onerous experiences. While psychological costs should be retained, I argue for abandoning the other cost categories. Building on previous reconceptualization efforts, I propose a new framework focused on time, money, effort, and psychological costs. Additionally, I explore the structure of the concept and propose specific indicators for each dimension. I then discuss the independence of these dimensions, their capacity to reflect the distributive nature of burdens, and avenues for empirical validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses administrative burdens faced by individuals interacting with state policies, programs, and services, highlighting various costs such as learning, compliance, and psychological costs. It emphasizes how administrative burdens negatively impact the take-up of public services, particularly affecting vulnerable populations and exacerbating inequality. The research explores the causes and consequences of administrative burdens, focusing on state actions, citizen experiences, and outcomes, with a diverse range of methodological approaches used in the studies presented. The article underscores the importance of understanding administrative burdens in citizen-state interactions for social welfare research and policy effectiveness. [Extracted from the article]

Although combining methods is nothing new, more contributions about why and how to mix methods for validation purposes are needed. This article presents a case of validating the inferences drawn from the Participatory Evaluation Measurement Instrument, an instrument that purports to measure stakeholder participation in evaluation. Although the process was intended to be almost exclusively quantitative, one of its components unexpectedly turned into a mixed methods study. This, in turn, spurred on a cycle of instrument revision and further quantitative validation. Whereas the validation evidence is modest and tentative, it suggests that the revised version of the Participatory Evaluation Measurement Instrument offers a better fit with the respondents' opinions regarding the participation level of selected evaluation cases. The article concludes with a brief discussion on the added value of mixed methods for validation purposes.

Background: Stakeholder participation is an important trend in the field of program evaluation. Although a few measurement instruments have been proposed, they either have not been empirically validated or do not cover the full content of the concept. Objectives: This study consists of a first empirical validation of a measurement instrument that fully covers the content of participation, namely the "Participatory Evaluation Measurement Instrument" (PEMI). It specifically examines (1) the intercoder reliability of scores derived by two research assistants on published evaluation cases; (2) the convergence between the scores of coders and those of key respondents (i.e., authors); and (3) the convergence between the authors' scores on the PEMI and the Evaluation Involvement Scale (EIS). Sample: A purposive sample of 40 cases drawn from the evaluation literature was used to assess reliability. One author per case in this sample was then invited to participate in a survey; 25 fully usable questionnaires were received. Measures: Stakeholder participation was measured on nominal and ordinal scales. Cohen's [kappa], the intraclass correlation coefficient, and Spearman's [rho] were used to assess reliability and convergence. Results: Reliability results ranged from fair to excellent. Convergence between coders' and authors' scores ranged from poor to good. Scores derived from the PEMI and the EIS were moderately associated. Conclusions: Evidence from this study is strong in the case of intercoder reliability and ranges from weak to strong in the case of convergent validation. Globally, this suggests that the PEMI can produce scores that are both reliable and valid. (Contains 5 notes, 4 tables, and 1 figure.)

While participatory evaluation (PE) constitutes an important trend in the field of evaluation, its ontology has not been systematically analyzed. As a result, the concept of PE is ambiguous and inadequately theorized. Furthermore, no existing instrument accurately measures stakeholder participation. First, this article attempts to overcome these problems by using the works of G. Goertz (2006) and J. Gerring (1999) on concept formation and evaluation to assess current conceptualizations of PE. Second, an amended version of the framework developed by J. B. Cousins and E. Whitmore (1998) is proposed as an alternative to current conceptualizations. This amended framework is then operationalized and adapted in a participation measurement instrument. The proposed conceptualization and instrument have the potential to contribute to the production of sound empirical knowledge about evaluation and to reflections on PE practice. (Contains 1 figure, 4 tables and 2 notes.)

Most quantitative, comparative welfare state research assumes that subnational welfare regimes are irrelevant or identical to their national counterparts. Many qualitative case studies, on the other hand, have underlined the differences between subnational and national regimes. In this article, we attempt to build bridges between these two strands of literature by examining the case for a Quebec model, that is, a subnational welfare state regime that is distinct from its Canadian counterpart(s). We reviewed seven publications from which we extracted 188 quantitative results relevant to the distinct subnational regime hypothesis. Although not all these results are independent nor based on conclusive evidence, they generally agree that a distinct welfare regime exists in Quebec. We conclude this article by discussing the implications of the Quebec case for the study of welfare regimes at the subnational and regional levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Program take-up is a necessary condition for program effectiveness. Yet, non-take-up is a significant challenge for many social programs, including Québec's Supplement to the Work Premium (SWP), a refundable tax credit targeted toward long-term welfare clients. Based on interviews with 21 public actors and 46 program participants and nonparticipants, this study explains how low program awareness, the low value of the benefit and the significant administrative burden borne by potential and actual participants contribute to the non-take-up of the SWP in this sample. Moreover, four policy implications and recommendations that can inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of social programs, are derived from this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Horizontal management raises significant challenges, particularly when assessing the performance of public programs. This case study focuses on Quebec's Supplement to the Work Premium (SWP), a social and fiscal cross‐ministerial measure, which was never subjected to any performance assessment since its introduction in 2008. We report on findings from interviews with public servants and attempt to explain how the SWP became a social and fiscal measure managed by three public organizations (ministère des Finances du Québec, Revenu Québec and the ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale). Then, we analyze the implementation and performance evaluation of the measure. We argue there is a disjuncture between official and informal responsibilities when assessing the SWP and between the interests of the organizations involved in the assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of 'explanation' has attracted considerable attention in the social sciences, and particularly within political science. However, scholars are not always familiar with what explaining political phenomena means, let alone with what it entails for developing sound causal arguments. This article introduces Craig Parsons' typology of explanation before assessing its value for the causal analysis of political behaviour and processes. As argued, despite its limitations, this typology clearly maps four types of explanation in political science (institutional, ideational, structural and psychological) while helping scholars to combine them more rigorously when needed. This is why Parsons' typology has the potential to move political scientists to the 'next level' as far as 'explanation' is concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic review and synthesis methods have gained wide acceptance within the social sciences and, as a result, many postgraduate students now consider using them for their thesis or dissertation research. However, students are rarely aware of all the concrete implications that their decision entails. This reflective narrative reports the experience of a political science student who began to conduct a systematic review as part of his Ph.D. dissertation but who did not complete it. The aim of this article is to identify challenges and lessons learned from this experience and to formulate recommendations for postgraduate students who wish to make an informed choice with respect to the use of these methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of policy paradigm, which was developed by Peter Hall in 1993, has given rise to an abundance of literature on ideas and policy dynamics. Despite its theoretical value, however, the original concept was insufficiently specified and has been used in problematic ways by many policy scholars, thereby undermining the validity of their descriptive and causal inferences. The main argument defended in this article is that scholars studying policy paradigms should devote as much attention to the ideas of policy makers as to the policies they adopt, while distinguishing between the two constructs as much as possible. This article reviews these issues and puts forward seven guidelines that aim to better circumscribe the concept of policy paradigm and improve research on ideas and policy dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Reassessing the concept of policy paradigm: aligning ontology and methodology in policy studies" is presented in reply to Frank R. Baumgartner's, Sebastiaan Princen's, and Paul ’t Hart's reviews of the article, all of which are in this issue.

There has recently been a tremendous growth in systematic literature review methods in social science, which may create confusion as to the role of researchers and reviewers. I argue that the tale of the Blind men and the elephants is a metaphor that illuminates the elusive nature of reality and the work of both primary researchers and various types of reviewers. The value of the metaphor is illustrated with a case drawn from the field of policy and program evaluation. Despite its limitations, this metaphor may lead social scientists to reflect upon the rigor of their literature review practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concepts are essential to any scientific endeavour aimed at ‘discovering’ the nature of ‘reality’. Yet, concepts and their analysis have received scant attention from scholars as objects worth studying and teaching in and of themselves, especially in comparison to data collection and analysis techniques. When scholars venture into analyzing concepts, they generally proceed informally, thereby raising serious concerns in terms of the validity of their findings. Conceptual analysis seems to be unrecognized and even unappreciated. This article aims to mitigate this problem. We first offer a few basic principles of conceptual analysis drawn from North American political science. After examining the nature of concepts and their importance to science, the work of Giovanni Sartori is used to establish a few rules and principles to follow when performing conceptual work. Using a sample of francophone methodological literature, we then conduct a plausibility probe of the hypothesis according to which conceptual analysis suffers from ‘benign neglect’. Based on this empirical test, we conclude that while many books explicitly deal with conceptual analysis, very few do so systematically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]