Table 2 Challenges and risks in doing... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Challenges and risks in doing good and beautiful research (VimodHome project)

Research/Intervention question	Complexities brought on by the context	Epistemological and methodological risks
The goal is to support the VimodrHOME project through an impact evaluation activity that would not be limited to measuring short-term results but would instead be capable of highlighting the initiative's innovative scope in the field of youth and social policies. The explicit request was to reveal the transformative and generative dimensions of the project, which not only diverge from traditional processes but also embrace the complexity of our time and the dialogue between institutions and local communities	The project involves a broad and diverse network of stakeholders: municipal social services, youth associations, third-sector organizations, professionals and citizens. The process of codesigning takes place in a dynamic context in which institutional objectives intertwine with the emerging needs of local communities. The value of the project lies not only in its immediate outputs but also in the processes of building relationships, alliances and new forms of collaboration. The planning process evolves in a nonlinear way and requires constant renegotiations of meanings, roles and practices	Epistemologically, there is a risk of adopting a reductionist evaluation logic that is oriented toward demonstrating effectiveness using functional and performance-based criteria. Methodologically, there is a risk of using tools, such as social return on investment (SROI), which are useful for accountability purposes but are incapable of capturing the quality of generative processes, the narrative and relational dimension of innovation, and the situated value produced by the project's participatory and transformative dynamics

Research/Intervention question	Complexities brought on by the context	Epistemological and methodological risks
The goal is to support the VimodrHOME project through an impact evaluation activity that would not be limited to measuring short-term results but would instead be capable of highlighting the initiative's innovative scope in the field of youth and social policies. The explicit request was to reveal the transformative and generative dimensions of the project, which not only diverge from traditional processes but also embrace the complexity of our time and the dialogue between institutions and local communities	The project involves a broad and diverse network of stakeholders: municipal social services, youth associations, third-sector organizations, professionals and citizens. The process of codesigning takes place in a dynamic context in which institutional objectives intertwine with the emerging needs of local communities. The value of the project lies not only in its immediate outputs but also in the processes of building relationships, alliances and new forms of collaboration. The planning process evolves in a nonlinear way and requires constant renegotiations of meanings, roles and practices	Epistemologically, there is a risk of adopting a reductionist evaluation logic that is oriented toward demonstrating effectiveness using functional and performance-based criteria. Methodologically, there is a risk of using tools, such as social return on investment (SROI), which are useful for accountability purposes but are incapable of capturing the quality of generative processes, the narrative and relational dimension of innovation, and the situated value produced by the project's participatory and transformative dynamics

Source(s): Authors’ own work