Knowledge, interests and the many meanings of evaluation: A developmental perspective

International Journal of Social Welfare

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 94-98

  Albaek E ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Design; Evaluation; Knowledge interests; Utilization

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040009247     PISSN: 13696866     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Albæk E (1995). Policy evaluation: design and utilization. In: Rist RC, ed. Policy Evaluation: Linking Theory to Practice. Aldershot, Edward Elgar.
2. Albæk E (1996). Why all this evaluation? Theoretical notes and empirical observations on the functions and growth of evaluation with Denmark as illustrative case. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 11(2): 1-34.
3. Alber J (1988). Is there a crisis of the welfare state? Cross-national evidence from Europe, North America, and Japan. European Sociological Review 4(3): 181-207.
4. Bryk AS, ed. (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
5. Butler R (1986). Program evaluation: a central perspective. In: Policy management and policy assessment. Royal Institute of Public Administration/Peat Marwick.
6. Cited from Gray A, Jenkins B (1990) Policy evaluation in a time of fiscal stress. In: Rist, RC, ed. Policy and program evaluation: perspectives on design and utilization. Brussels, HAS.
7. Campbell DT (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist 24: 409-429.
8. Campbell DT (1988). The experimenting society. In: Campbell, DT Methodology and epistemology for social science: selected papers, edited by E. Samuel Overman. Chicago, III, University of Chicago Press.
9. Dye TR, Zeigler LH (1975). The irony of democracy: an uncommon introduction to American politics. North Scituate, MA, Duxbury Press.
10. Fetterman DM, Kaftarian SJ, Wandersman, A, eds. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: knowledge and tools for self-assessment & accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
11. Guba E, Lincoln Y (1989). Fourth generation evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
12. Hargrove E (1975). The missing link: the study of the implementation of social policy. Washington, DC, Urban Institute.
13. Keman H (1993). Proliferation of the welfare state: Comparative profiles of public sector management, 1965-70. In: Eliassen KA, Kooiman J, ed. Managing public organizations: lessons from comtemporaty European experience. London, Sage.
14. Majone G (1988). Policy analysis and public deliberation. In Reich RB ed., The power of public ideas. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
15. Nelson RR (1977). The moon and the ghetto: an essay on public policy analysis. New York, W.W. Norton & Co.
16. OECD (1980). Strategies for change and reform in public management. OECD Report 1980: 13. Paris, OECD.
17. Olsen JP (1978). Folkestyre, buråkrati og korporativisme. [Democracy, bureaucracy and corporativism]. In: Olsen JP, ed., Politisk organisering. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.
18. Rist RC, ed. (1990). Program evaluation and the management of government: patterns & prosepcts across eight nations. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers.
19. Rittel HW, Webber M (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155-169.
20. Schriven M (1973). Goal free evaluation. In: House ER, ed., School evaluation: the politics and process. Berkeley, CA, McCutchan.
21. Smith G, Cantley C (1985). Assessing health care: a study in organizational evaluation. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
22. Smith JK (1983). Quantitative versus interpretative: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House ER, ed., Philosophy of evaluation, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
23. Weiss CH (1993). Lessons from the U.S. evaluation experience. Politica 25(1): 64-76.