نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مرتضی گنجی ¹
• محسن کرمانی نصرابادی ²

¹ دانشجوی دکتری جامعه شناسی فرهنگی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

² دکتری جامعه شناسی سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

 
آسیب‌های اجتماعی به عنوان یکی از حساسیت‌‌برانگیزترین موضوعات در سطح افکار عمومی جامعه، در دهه‌های اخیر به دغدغه‌ای حاکمیتی تبدیل شده است؛ لذا سیاست‌گذاران تلاش نموده‌اند تا در قالب انواع سیاست‌‍ها و قوانینی مانند برنامه‌های پنج‌ساله توسعه تمهیداتی برای کنترل و کاهش این آسیب‌ها بیندیشند. این تلاش در شرایطی انجام‌گرفته که تاکنون تعداد محدودی از احکام سیاستی موجود در این برنامه‌ها به صورت موفقیت‌آمیز محقق شده‌اند. یکی از زمینه‌های عدم‌موفقیت برنامه‌های توسعه، کم‌توجهی به مقوله ارزیابی برنامه‌ای دانسته شده است. مبتنی بر همین ضرورت، مقاله حاضر ضمن استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی با هدف شناسایی و تدقیق شاخص‌های ارزیابی احکام حوزه آسیب‌های اجتماعی در برنامه‌های توسعه تدوین گردیده است. مرور ادبیات مفهومی ارزیابی سیاستی نشان‌دهنده این است که می‌توان سه نوع ارزیابی را از هم تفکیک نمود؛ پیش‌ارزیابی، ارزیابی فرایند و ارزیابی پسینی. پیش‌ارزیابی خود می‌تواند معطوف به فرایند تدوین احکام سیاستی، کیفیت شکلی احکام و کیفیت محتوایی آن‌ها باشد. باتوجه به تعریف آسیب‌های ‌اجتماعی و ماهیت خاص درگیری افراد جامعه با آن، به نظر می‌رسد که در میان شاخص‌های سه‌گانه فرایندی، شکلی و محتوایی، توجه به شاخص‌های فرایندی در عرصه سیاست‌گذاری حوزه آسیب‌های اجتماعی از اهمیت بیشتری برخوردار است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آسیب اجتماعی
• ارزیابی برنامهای
• پیشارزیابی
• حکمرانی آسیب‌ها
• وضعیت اجتماعی

موضوعات

• جامعه شناسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining Pre-Evaluation Indicators of Development Programs in the Field of Social Problems

نویسندگان [English]

• Morteza Ganji ¹
• Mohsen Kermani Nasrabadi ²

¹ PhD Candidate in Cultural Sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

² PhD in political Sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

 
Social damages, have become a sovereign concern in recent decades; Therefore, policy makers have tried to think of measures to control and reduce these damages in the form of various policies and laws such as five-year development plans. This attention and effort has been done in a situation where so far a very limited number of policy orders in these programs have been successfully implemented. One of the reasons for the failure of development programs is the lack of attention to the category of program evaluation. this article has been compiled while using the qualitative content analysis method with the aim of identifying the evaluation indicators of the judgments in the field of social damages in development programs. A review of the conceptual literature of policy evaluation shows that three types of evaluation can be distinguished; Pre-evaluation, process evaluation and post-evaluation. pre-evaluation can be focused on the process of formulating political rulings, the quality of the form of the rulings, and the quality of their content. According to the definition of social damages and the specific nature of society's involvement with it, it seems that among the three indicators of process, form and content, paying attention to process indicators is more important in the field of policy making in the field of social damages.
Keywords: Social Damage, Program Evaluation, Pre-Evaluation, Development Programs, Social Situation.

Introduction

Considering the amount and severity of social damages in the last few decades has always been one of the concerns of policy makers and has been placed on the agenda as one of the priorities of development programs; Despite this attention and efforts, expert evaluations show that the success rate of development programs in controlling and reducing these damages has not been satisfactory. Experts consider one of the most important factors of this situation to be the lack of attention to the category of program evaluation and the lack of a clear and systematic mechanism to do it. Based on this, this article seeks to describe the category of pre-evaluation while identifying the types of programmatic evaluation.
Research Question(s)
What are the different types of evaluation of policy programs?
What parts and elements does pre-evaluation of programs include?
In the field of social damage, what kind of pre-evaluation is more important?

Conceptual framework

The term evaluation, like many other concepts in the field of social sciences, faces a kind of conceptual confusion. This situation has been created in Latin literature due to the existence of words with the same meaning and equivalent in this field; And in the Persian language, due to the transfer of this conceptual ambiguity from the Latin language, on the one hand, and the use of different equivalent words for this concept in translation, on the other hand, it has become more complicated. For example, in this field, the concepts of evaluation, valuation, measurement and monitoring are also used, which are sometimes used jointly. Mikael Scriven, one of the pioneers of this field, defined 60 different terms, including measurement, judgment, assessment, analysis, evaluation, criticism, review, rating, inspection, judgment, rating, scoring, study and The test mentions in this context (Pourezat and Seyed Rezaei, 2018).

Methodology

This research is a type of basic research with a qualitative method, and the method of conducting it is a systematic literature review with a qualitative content analysis approach. One of the practical methods in the field of qualitative research is content analysis; Content analysis is a method based on which the linguistic features of a text can be known realistically and regularly. Content analysis means "applying a repeatable and valid method to obtain inferences from content in relation to situations or characteristics of its source". Qualitative content analysis is an experimental, methodical and controlled examination of contents using the rules of content analysis and the stages of its patterns without hasty quantification (Danesh Fard, 2016). For qualitative content analysis in this research, written and content sources in the field of policy making and law writing have been examined.

Results

Evaluation research can be divided into two parts based on whether it evaluates a program or its results. In the first type, the structure of the program and policy is examined; But in the second type of research, the results and effects are evaluated without paying attention to the structure of the program. For example, in the evaluation of a country's development plan, it is possible to focus only on the plan itself and its characteristics, such as the definition of development and whether the various aspects of development have been considered or not.But in evaluating the results of a program, the focus is not on the program itself, but the goal is to answer the question of whether the program has achieved its desired results or not (Haji Yousefi, 2021). Also, according to the criterion of the "stage of the policy-making process" on which the evaluation is based, it is possible to differentiate between three types of evaluation; which includes: post-evaluation, process evaluation and pre-evaluation (Ghorouneh et al., 2016). Pre-evaluation is an activity that starts at the beginning of the policy-making process, and post-policy evaluation is an activity that measures the realization of results during and after the implementation of the policy and deviations from the designed goals, actual time and additional costs. It identifies more than resources and other factors (Matti and Degaro, 2011).
 According to the investigations of this research, it can be said that the evaluation of plans and policies can be done in three situations:
- Pre-evaluation: checking the status and quality of drafting plans and policies;
- Evaluation of the process or during implementation: checking the status and quality of the policy implementation process;
- Ex-post evaluation or evaluation of results: examining the success rate and various effects of programs and projects.

Conclusion

Compilation of the necessary indicators to evaluate the state of formulation and quality of policy rulings related to social damages requires paying attention to the definition of this concept and its components. Paying attention to the definition of social damage shows the collective and context-oriented aspect of this phenomenon; In other words, although the type and title of social damages occurred in different regions are similar to each other, each of these damages are still affected by the special conditions in the socio-cultural environment governing the said regions.
According to the definition of social damage and the specific nature of society's involvement with it, it seems that among the three indicators of process, form and content; paying attention to process indicators is more important in the field of policy making. In this context, the argument is that policymaking is a cycle that cannot achieve significant success without considering the needs of the target community and considering their attitudes and tendencies; This issue is more important in the field of social damage, because if the policy maker puts an issue on the agenda that the society does not consider as a problem or damage, successful action in this field will not be possible. Also, putting social problems and damages on the agenda without attracting the participation and opinions of various elites and stakeholders will make it more difficult to control and reduce these damage and problems. Based on this, the process of identifying and determining priority issues and social damages and developing relevant programs and measures requires specific and clear indicators.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Social Damage
• Program Evaluation
• Pre-Evaluation
• Development Programs
• Social Situation