Place-based initiatives offer a comprehensive, whole-of-community approach to solving complex problems. Impact evaluation of complex initiatives is challenging and alternative “improvement focused” methodologies, such as developmental evaluation, action research, and quality improvement, are being used. Limited understanding exists about how these methodologies work when used in place-based initiatives, which contexts they are individually best suited to, and what they can achieve. This article outlines an approach to examining the application of developmental evaluation, action research, and quality improvement to the evaluation of place-based initiatives. The approach used a realist evaluation methodology and involved a literature review and three “instrumental” case studies. The approach described in this article can support others to design and undertake their own research to inform decision making around the most suitable methodologies in the emerging field of place-based initiative evaluation.
CroweS.CresswellK.RobertsonA.HubyG.AveryA.SheikhA. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 100. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100
LangloisM.Blanchet-CohenN.BeerT. (2013). The art of the nudge: Five practices for developmental evaluators. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 27(2), 39–59.
13.
LewinK. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
14.
LiamputtongP. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
MastersJ. (1995). The history of action research. In HughesI. (Ed.), Action research electronic reader. Retrieved from www.iopp.ru/pub/21sept06_M2.doc
17.
McCutcheonG.JungB. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Into Practice, 24, 144–151.
18.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007. Canberra, Australia: Author.
19.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2014). Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities. Canberra, Australia: Author.
20.
ØvretveitJ. (1998). Evaluating health interventions : An introduction to evaluation of health treatments, services, policies, and organizational interventions. Buckingham England; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
PattonM. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
PawsonR.GreenhalghT.HarveyG.WalsheK. (2004). Realist synthesis: An introduction (RMP Methods Paper 2/2004). Manchester, UK: Centre for Census and Survey Research, University of Manchester.
PawsonR.TilleyN. (2004). Realist evaluation: The Magenta book guidance notes. London, England: British Cabinet Office.
27.
Perri6LeatD.SeltzerK.StokerG. (2002). Towards holistic governance: The new reform agenda. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
PreskillH.ParkhurstM.Splansky JusterJ. (2014). Guide to evaluating collective impact: Learning and evaluation in the collective impact context. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Consultants.
29.
RadawskiD. (1999). Continuous quality improvement: Origins, concepts, problems, and applications. Perspective on Physician Assistant Education, 10(1), 12–16.
30.
RanmuthugalaG.CunninghamF. C.PlumbJ.LongJ.GeorgiouA.WestbrookJ. I.BraithwaiteJ. (2011). A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice. Implementation Science, 6, 49.
31.
SalterK. L.KothariA. (2014). Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: A state-of-the-art review. Implementation Science, 9, 115.
32.
TurnerM. A.EdelmanP.PoethigE.AronL.RogersM.LowensteinC. (2014). Tackling persistent poverty in distressed urban neighborhoods: History, principles and strategies for philanthropic investment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
