Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCamfield, Lauraen
dc.contributor.authorDuvendack, Marenen
dc.contributor.authorPalmer?Jones, Richarden
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-04T16:39:14Z
dc.date.available2016-01-04T16:39:14Z
dc.date.issuedNovember 2014en
dc.identifier.citationCamfield, L., Duvendack, M. and Palmer?Jones, R. (2014) Things you Wanted to Know about Bias in Evaluations but Never Dared to Think. IDS Bulletin 45(6): 49-64en
dc.identifier.issn1759-5436en
dc.identifier.urihttp://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/7346
dc.description.abstractThe thrust for evidence?based policymaking has paid little attention to problems of bias. Statistical evidence is more fragile than generally understood, and false positives are all too likely given the incentives of policymakers and academic and professional evaluators. Well?known cognitive biases make bias likely for not dissimilar reasons in qualitative and mixed methods evaluations. What we term delinquent organisational isomorphism promotes purportedly scientific evaluations in inappropriate institutional contexts, intensifying motivated reasoning and avoidance of cognitive dissonance. This leads to states of denial with regard to the validity of much evaluation activity. Independent replications, revisits and restudies, together with codes of ethics that relate to professional integrity, may mitigate these problems.en
dc.format.extent16en
dc.publisher© 2014 Institute of Development Studiesen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesIDS Bulletin Vol. 45 Nos. 6en
dc.rights.urihttp://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IDSOpenDocsStandardTermsOfUse.pdfen
dc.titleThings you Wanted to Know about Bias in Evaluations but Never Dared to Thinken
dc.typeArticleen
dc.rights.holder© 2013 The Author. IDS Bulletin © 2013 Institute of Development Studiesen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1759-5436.12112en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record