Stunted by stakeholders? limits to collaborative evaluation

Public Policy and Administration

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 77-90

  Pollitt, Christopher ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001732516     PISSN: 09520767     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/095207679901400207     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (1995), Evaluation of the black spot program, (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.).
2. Bussmann, W. (1996), Democracy and evaluation's contribution to negotiation, empowerment and information, Evaluation, 2: 3, July, pp.307-319.
3. Campbell, D. (1969), Reforms as experiments, American Psychologist 24, pp.409-429.
4. Cheetham, J.; Mullen, E.; Soydan, H. and Tengvald, K. (1998), Evaluation as a tool in the development of social work discourse, Evaluation, 4: 1, January, pp.9-24.
5. Duran, P.; Monnier, E. and Smith, A. (1995), Evaluation a la francaise, Evaluation, 1: 1, July, pp.45-63.
6. Everitt, A. (1996), Developing critical evaluation, Evaluation, 2: 2, pp.173-188.
7. Fetterman, D.; Kaftarian, S. and Wandersman, A. (eds.) (1996), Empowerment evaluation: knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability, (London: Sage.).
8. Floc'hlay, B. and Plottu, E. (1998), Democratic evaluation: from empowerment evaluation to public decision-making, Evaluation, 4: 3, July, pp.261-277.
9. Fraser, N. (1989), Talking about needs: interpretive contests as political conflicts in welfare state societies, Ethics, 99, January, pp.291-313.
10. Greene, J. (1999), The inequality of performance measurements, Evaluation, 5: 2, April, pp. 160-172.
11. Guba, Y. and Lincoln, E. (1989), Fourth generation evaluation, (London: Sage).
12. Kushner, S. (1996), The limits of constructivism in evaluation, Evaluation, 2: 2, April, pp.189-200.
13. Laughlin, R. and Broadbent, J. (1996), Redesigning fourth generation evaluation: an evaluation model for public sector reforms in the UK?, Evaluation, 2: 4, October, pp.431-451.
14. Newman, D. and Brown, R. (1996), Applied ethics for program evaluation, (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage.).
15. Palumbo, D. and Hallett, M. (1993), Conflict versus consensus models in policy evaluation and implementation, Evaluation and program planning, vol.16, pp.11-23.
16. Patton, M.Q. (1997), Utilisation-focused evaluation: the new century text (3rd edition), (London: Sage.).
17. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic evaluation, (London: Sage.).
18. Pollitt, C. (1998), Evaluation in Europe: boom or bubble?, Evaluation, 4: 2, April, pp.214-224.
19. Rist, R. (1995), Introduction, pp.xiii-xxvi in R. Rist (ed.), Policy evaluation: linking theory to practice, (Aldershot: Edward Elgar.).
20. Scriven, M. (1997), Truth and objectivity in evaluation, pp.477-500 in E. Chelimsky and W. Shadish (eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: a handbook, (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage.).
21. Shadish, W.; Cook, T. and Leviton, L. (1991), Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice, (London: Sage.).
22. Toulemonde, J.; Fontaine, C.; Laudren, E. and Vincke, P. (1998), Evaluation in partnership: suggestions for improving their quality, Evaluation, 4: 2, pp.171-188.
23. Weiss, C. (1988), Evaluation for decisions: is anybody there? Does anybody care?, Evaluation Practice, 9: 1, pp.5-19.