Evaluation and Transformative Social Innovation: A Call for New Habits

In this article we argue that dominant measurement and evaluation methods reduce the transformative potential of social innovation initiatives. Taking a pragmatist perspective on transformative social innovation and drawing on a commonly used distinction between simple, complicated and complex intervention logics, we demonstrate that habitually used monitoring and evaluation methods are often supported by a simple or complicated intervention logic. These intervention logics and related understandings of social change and knowledge production are incompatible with the ambition to realise transformation. Less dominant methods, which often are supported by a complex intervention logic, seem to be more apt, especially when they do not focus on adaptation alone, for the monitoring and evaluation of transformative social innovation initiatives. On the basis of this analysis, we plead for new habits of monitoring and evaluation and formulate an agenda for further action and research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
Published
2025-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.w8sydp51
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.76
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation and Transformative Social Innovation: A Call for New Habits

Joke Vandenabeele, Mieke Berghmans
1 citations
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
2.76
article

Evaluation and Transformative Social Innovation: A Call for New Habits

Joke Vandenabeele, Mieke Berghmans
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In this article we argue that dominant measurement and evaluation methods reduce the transformative potential of social innovation initiatives. Taking a pragmatist perspective on transformative social innovation and drawing on a commonly used distinction between simple, complicated and complex intervention logics, we demonstrate that habitually used monitoring and evaluation methods are often supported by a simple or complicated intervention logic. These intervention logics and related understandings of social change and knowledge production are incompatible with the ambition to realise transformation. Less dominant methods, which often are supported by a complex intervention logic, seem to be more apt, especially when they do not focus on adaptation alone, for the monitoring and evaluation of transformative social innovation initiatives. On the basis of this analysis, we plead for new habits of monitoring and evaluation and formulate an agenda for further action and research.

Journal of Public and Nonprofit AffairsVol. 11(1)
KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
2.76
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.