Policy implementation in the public sector: A comparison of two methods of evaluating the impact of government interventions

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to compare the plausibility and criticality of two methods of evaluating the implementation of a new government policy within a public service organisation, and to examine the power relations revealed in each evaluation and the social realities of the membership.

Design/methodology/approach

Two contrasting approaches to research, based on different theoretical perspectives, were undertaken simultaneously to provide a critical account of an organisation, and its membership, undergoing an externally imposed transformation to improve child protection procedures. The first involved the use of mainly quantitative methods in the form of government sponsored social surveys. Data were triangulated with organisational inspection outcomes. The second method comprised a critical ethnographic evaluation undertaken through discourse analysis in the organisation.

Findings

Bottom-up agency rather than top-down structural change is the main influence on policy implementation in child protection. Critical discourse analysis provides a more plausible and credible analysis of the dynamics of organisational change and power relations than surveys.

Originality/value

This research poses new questions over the value of quantitative surveys as opposed to ethnographic methodologies in representing organisational practices.

Citation

Ladner, J. (2016), "Policy implementation in the public sector: A comparison of two methods of evaluating the impact of government interventions", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-07-2016-0014