Evaluating collaboration: The creation of an online tool employing Q methodology

17Citations
Citations of this article
57Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The continued prevalence of different forms of collaborative working within public policy requires adaption in evaluation practices. In recent years evaluation toolkits, audits and guides have migrated online, but with varying success. At their worst, such tools can offer a disengaging user experience, limited coverage of issues or normative bias. This article outlines POETQ, designed to be engaging, comprehensive and methodologically robust. An overview of this approach is set out alongside an analysis of its merits. The article concludes by reflecting on the kinds of evidence that policy makers actually want to generate in relation to the topic of collaboration.

References Powered by Scopus

Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks

1050Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation

885Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey

762Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

How do professionals perceive the governance of public–private partnerships? Evidence from Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark

34Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Why do pregnant women participate in research? A patient participation investigation using Q-Methodology

25Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jeffares, S., & Dickinson, H. (2016). Evaluating collaboration: The creation of an online tool employing Q methodology. Evaluation, 22(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015624195

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 35

78%

Researcher 6

13%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

4%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 17

50%

Business, Management and Accounting 8

24%

Environmental Science 6

18%

Psychology 3

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free