Toward an integrative framework for evaluation practice

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 177-198

  Mark, Melvin M ^a   Henry, Gary T ^b   Julnes, George ^c  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008745139     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/109821409902000202     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Bhaskar R.A. A realist theory of science. 1975;Verso, London.
2. Bhaskar R.A. The possibility of naturalism. 3rd ed. 1998;Routledge, London.
3. Bryk A.S. Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 17. 1983;Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
4. Campbell D.T. Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist. 24:1969;409-429.
5. Caracelli, V. J. & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Chelimsky, E. (1997). The coming transformation in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Conrad, K. J. & Beulow, J. R. (1990). Developing and testing program classification and function theories. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Advances in program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Cook, T. D. (1993). A quasi-sampling theory of the generalization of causal relationships. In. L. B. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.) Understanding causes and generalizing about them. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 57, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9. Cook T.D., Shadish W.R. Program evaluation The worldly science . Annual Review of Psychology. 37:1986;193-232.
10. Cronbach L.J. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. 1982;Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
11. Datta, L. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful existence and beyond. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions in Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli, (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions in Evaluation, no 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 1998;Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
14. Harré R. Varieties of realism. 1986;Blackwell, Oxford.
15. Henderson L.A., Basile K.C., Henry G.T. Prekindergarten Longitudinal Study 1997-98 School Year Annual Report . 1999;Applied Research Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
16. Henry, G. (1999). What do we expect from preschool? A systematic inquiry into values, conflicts, and consensus. Paper to be presented at the American Evaluation Association annual meeting, Orlando, FL.
17. Henry, G. T., Henderson, L. W., & Verrill, Linda. (1999) Triggering mechanisms for school success: A theory based approach for evaluating preschool programs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal Canada.
18. Henry, G. T. & Julnes, G. (1998). Values and realist evaluation. In G. T. Henry, G. Julnes, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice. New Directions in Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. House E.R. Realism in research. Educational Researcher. 20:1991;2-9.
20. House, E. R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions in Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
21. Julnes, G. & Mark, M. (1998). Evaluation as sensemaking: Knowledge construction in a realist world. In G. T. Henry, G. Julnes, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Julnes G., Mark M.M., Henry G.T. Promoting realism in evaluation Realistic Evaluation and the broader context . Evaluation. 4:1998;483-503.
23. Lincoln Y.S. The making of a constructivist A remembrance of transformations past . Guba E.G. The paradigm dialog. 1990;Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
24. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. RSVP We are pleased to accept your invitation . Evaluation Practice. 15:1994;179-192.
25. Lipsey, M. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In L. B. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them. New Directions for Program Evaluation, vol. 57. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26. Lipsey, M. (1997). What can you build with thousands of bricks? Musings on the cumulation of knowledge in program evaluation. In D. J. Rog & D. Fournier (Eds.) Progress and future directions in evaluations: Perspectives on theory, practice, and methods. New Directions for Evaluation, vol. 76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Marcon R. Differential effects of three preschool models on inner-city four year olds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 7:1992;517-530.
28. Marcon R. Doing the right thing for children Linking research and policy reform in the District of Columbia public schools . Young Children. 1994;2-10.
29. Mark, M. M. (1990). From program theory to test of program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Program theory in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Mark, M. M. (1998). A conceptual framework for evaluation practice: A realist guide for planning evaluations in support of social betterment. Paper presented at Evaluation '98: Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, November 1998.
31. Mark, M. M., Feller, I., & Button, S. (1997). Integrating qualitative methods in a predominantly quantitative evaluation: A case study and some reflections. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli, (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (1998). A realist theory of evaluation practice. In G. T. Henry, G. Julnes, & M. M. Mark, (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
33. Mark M., Henry G.T., Julnes G. Evaluation making sense of policies and programs Description, classification, causal analysis and values inquiry . 1999;Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
34. Mark M.M., Shotland R.L. Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgments. Evaluation Review. 9:1985;605-626.
35. McLaughlin M.W. Evaluation and reform The case of ESEA Title I . 1975;Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
36. Meehl P. What social scientists don't understand. Schweder R.A., Fiske D.W. Metatheory in social science Pluralisms and subjectivities . 1986;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
37. Melkers J., Willoughby K. The state of the states Performance-based budgeting in 47 out of 50 . Public Administration Review. 58:1998;66-73.
38. Orwin R.G., Sonnefeld L.J., Cordray D.S., Pion G.M., Perl H.I. Constructing quantitative implementation scales from categorical services data Examples from a multisite evaluation . Evaluation Review. 22:1998;245-288.
39. Patton M.Q. Utilization-focused evaluation The new century text . 1997;Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
40. Pawson R., Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. 1997;Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
41. Putnam H. The many faces of realism. 1987;Open Court, LaSalle, IL.
42. Putnam H. Realism with a human face. 1990;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Putnam H. Words and life. 1994;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
44. Reichardt, C. S. & Cook, T. D. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
45. Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The Qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46. Rosch, E. & Bloom, B. B. (Eds.), (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Scarr S., Eisenberg M., Deater-Deckard K. Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 9:1994;131-151.
48. Scheirer, M. A. (1987). Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluators. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, no. 1. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
50. Scriven M.S. Maximizing the power of causal investigations The modus operandi method . Glass G.V. Evaluation studies review annual. 1976;Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
51. Scriven, M. S. (1993). Hard won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation: No. 58. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
52. Scriven M. The evaluation thesaurus. 1990;Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
53. Scriven M.S. The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice. 15:1994;367-382.
54. Sherif M., Harvey O.J., White B.J., Bond W.R., Sherif C.W. Intergroup cooperation and competition The robbers cave experience . 1961;University Book Exchange, Norman, OK.
55. Simon H.A. Administrative behavior A study of decision making processes in administrative organizations . 4th ed. 1997;Free Press, New York.
56. Smith, M. L. (1994). Qualitative plus/versus quantitative: The last word. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The Qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57. Smith, M. L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In J. C. Greene & D. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58. Spradley J.P. Participant observation. 1980;Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
59. District of Columbia Extent to which schools receive available federal education grants. GAO/HEHS-99-1 . 1998;Author, Washington, DC.
60. Head Start Challenges in monitoring program quality and demonstrating results. GAO/HEHS-98-186 . 1998;Author, Washington, DC.
61. Weiss, C. H. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In Anthony S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 17. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
62. Wholey J.S. Evaluation and effective public management. 1983;Little Brown, Boston, MA.
63. Wholey J.S. Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. Wholey J.S., Katry H.P., Newcomer K.E. Handbook of practical program evaluation. 1994;Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
64. Wholey J.S., Hatry H.P., Newcomer K.E. Handbook of practical program evaluation. 1994;Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
65. Wynn K. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature. 358:1992;749-750.
66. Yin R.K. Case study research. 2nd ed. 1994;Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.