Search

Evaluation professionals need to be nimble and innovative in their approaches in order to be relevant and provide useful evidence to decision-makers, stakeholders, and society in the crowded public policy landscape. In this article, we offer serious games as a method that can be employed by evaluators to address three persisting challenges in current evaluation practice: inclusion of stakeholders, understanding of causal mechanisms, and utilization of evaluation findings. We provide a framework that distinguishes among games along two crucial aspects of evaluation inquiry - its function and the nature of the evaluand. We offer examples of successfully implemented games in each set of the four arenas we delineate: teaching knowables, testing retention, crash-testing mechanisms, and exploring systems. We explain how games can be employed to promote learning about and among stakeholders, and to collect valuable intelligence about the operations of programs and policies.

Knowledge brokering is a promising practice for addressing the challenge of using research evidence, including evaluation findings, in policy implementation. For public policy practitioners, it means playing the role of an intermediary who steers the flow of knowledge between producers (researchers) and users (decision makers). It requires a set of specific skills that can be learnt most effectively by experience. The article explains how to develop knowledge brokering skills through experiential learning in a risk-free environment. It reports on the application of an innovative learning method--a game-based workshop. The article introduces the conceptual framework for designing game-based learning. Then, it demonstrates how this framework was applied in practice of teaching knowledge brokering. In conclusion, article discusses the first lessons of game application in training public policy practitioners. It concludes that game-based workshop is a promising method for learning about knowledge brokering strategies that increase evaluation use.

Evaluation practice is vital for the accountability and learning of administrations implementing complex policies. This article explores the relationships between the structures of the evaluation systems and their functions. The findings are based on a comparative analysis of six national systems executing evaluation of the European Union Cohesion Policy. The study identifies three types of evaluation system structure: centralized with a single evaluation unit, decentralized with a coordinating body and decentralized without a coordinating body. These systems differ in terms of the thematic focus of evaluations and the targeted users. Decentralized systems focus on internal users of knowledge and produce mostly operational studies; their primary function is inward-oriented learning about smooth programme implementation. Centralized systems fulfil a more strategic function, recognizing the external audience and external accountability for effects. Points for practitioners: Practitioners who design multi-organizational evaluation systems should bear in mind that their structure and functions are interrelated. If both accountability and learning are desired, the evaluation system needs at least a minimum degree of decentralization on the one hand and the presence of an active and independent coordination body on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This article informs readers about the theoretical and practical origins of the behaviorally informed interventions (BIPI), analyzes examples of the BIPI from different policy sectors and strategies they offer for policy and regulatory design, and discusses applications and implications of BIPI for public interventions Methodology: This paper is based on a review of literature, as well as an inspection of administrative practices in OECD countries. It encompasses a systematic analysis of scientific papers from the SCOPUS database and a query carried out at the library of George Washington University. Findings: The traditional approach to public policy research is based on rational choice theory. It offers limited support, because by assuming perfect rationality of policy decisions, it overlooks existence of systematic errors and biases of human decision-making. The authors argue that behaviorally informed public interventions (BIPI) might contribute to improving the effectiveness of a number of public measures - regulation, projects, programs, and even entire policies. Practical implications: The behavioral approach allows decision-makers to better understand the decisions and behaviors of citizens, as well as to design more effective interventions with minimum effort by adapting the existing solutions to real decision mechanisms of citizens. Originality: By combining the concepts of traditional approach with the growing behavioral approach, the authors aim to propose a new theoretical framework (BIPI) to be used as a tool for policy design, delivery and evaluation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles within the issue such as the need of the quality of regulations for social and economic development; article on regulatory impact assessment by Tomasz Kupiec; and article on concerning policy by Karol Olejniczak and others.