The Limits of Realist Evaluation: Surfacing and Exploring Assumptions in Assessing the Best Value Performance Regime

Evaluation

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 275-295

  Davis, Paul ^a  

^a ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

assumptions analysis; Best Value; policy evaluation; Realist Evaluation; UK

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744471859     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389005058476     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Armstrong, M. and A. Baron (1998) Performance Management: The New Realities. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
2. Audit Commission (2000) Another Step Forward: The Audit Commission's Expectations from Year Two of Best Value. London: Audit Commission.
3. Audit Commission (2001) Changing Gear: Best Value Annual Statement 2001. London: Audit Commission.
4. Barnes, M., E. Matka and H. Sullivan (2003) ‘Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems’, Evaluation 9(3): 265-284.
5. Bella, D. (1987) ‘Organisations and Systematic Distortion of Information’, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering 113(4): 360-370.
6. Bone, C. (2001) Delivering Performance: Performance Management and Performance Information for Best Value. London: Bone & Robertson.
7. Bovaird, T. and A. Halachmi (1999) ‘Community Scorecards: The Role of Stakeholders in Performance Assessment’, in A. Halachmi (ed.) Performance and Quality Measurement in Government: Issues and Experience, pp. 145-156. Burke, VA: Chatelaine.
8. Bovaird, T. and A. Halachmi (2001) ‘Learning from International Approaches to Best Value’, Policy and Politics 29(4): 451-463.
9. Bowerman, M. (2002) ‘Isomorphism without Legitimacy? The Case of the Business Excellence Model in Local Government’, Public Money and Management 22(2): 47-52.
10. Bowerman, M., G. Francis, A. Ball and J. Fry (2002) ‘The Evolution of Benchmarking in UK Local Authorities’, Benchmarking 9(5): 429-449.
11. Boyne, G. (1999) ‘Processes, Performance and Best Value in Local Government’, Local Government Studies 25(2): 1-15.
12. Boyne, G. (2001) ‘Planning, Performance and Public Services’, Public Administration 79: 73-88.
13. Byng, R., I. Norman, S. Redfern and R. Jones (2002) ‘Using “Realistic Evaluation” as a Framework for Evaluating a Complex Intervention to Improve Shared Care for Long-Term Mental Illness’, Paper presented at the 5th European Evaluation Society conference, Seville, Spain, 10-12 Oct.
14. Calnan, M. and E. Ferlie (2003) ‘Analysing Process in Healthcare: The Methodological and Theoretical Challenges’, Policy and Politics 31(2): 185-193.
15. Cox, J., L. Mann and D. Samson (1997) ‘Benchmarking as a Mixed Metaphor: Disentangling Assumptions of Competition and Collaboration’, Journal of Management Studies 34(2): 285-314.
16. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001) ‘From Programme Theory to Constructivism: On Tragic, Magic and Competing Programmes’, Evaluation 7(3): 331-350.
17. Davis, H. and S. Martin (2002) ‘Evaluating the Best Value Pilot Programme: Measuring “Success” and “Improvement”’, Local Government Studies 28(2): 55-68.
18. Davis, P. and P. Wright (2004) ‘A Realist Evaluation Approach to Understanding the Best Value Review Process’, Local Government Studies 30(3): 423-440.
19. DeCarufel, A. (1994) ‘Organizational Culture Change for Public Sector Managers’, Optimum 25(2): 16-25.
20. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998) Modernising Local Government: Improving Local Services through Best Value. London: DETR.
21. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000) Guide to Quality Schemes and Best Value. London: DETR.
22. Fitzsimmons, J. and M. Fitzsimmons (1994) Service Management for Competitive Advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23. Freer, S. (2002) ‘Comprehensive Performance Assessment in Local Government’, Public Money and Management 22(2): 5-6.
24. Greene, J. (1999) ‘The Inequality of Performance Measurements’, Evaluation 5(2): 160-172.
25. Haarhuis, C. and F. Leeuw (2000) ‘Measuring and Explaining Variance between Anti-Corruption Policies’, Paper presented at the 4th European Evaluation Society conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, 12-14 Oct.
26. Halachmi, A. and L. Geri (1999) ‘Service Quality and Stakeholders’, in A. Halachmi (ed.) Performance and Quality Measurement in Government: Issues and Experience, pp. 83-102. Burke, VA: Chatelaine.
27. Hill, M. and P. Hupe (2003) ‘The Multi-Layer Problem in Implementation Research’, Public Management Review 5(4): 471-490.
28. Ho, S. (1999) ‘Evaluating Urban Regeneration Programmes in Britain: Exploring the Potential of the Realist Approach’, Evaluation 5(4): 422-438.
29. Huzzard, T. and K. Östergren (2002) ‘When Norms Collide: Learning under Organizational Hypocrisy’, British Journal of Management 13: S47-S59.
30. Kay, A. (2003) ‘Path Dependency and the CAP’, Journal of European Public Policy 10(3): 405-420.
31. Kazi, M. (2000) ‘Contemporary Perspectives in the Evaluation of Practice’, British Journal of Social Work 30: 755-768.
32. Kazi, M. and L. Spurling (2000) ‘Realist Evaluation for Evidence-Based Practice’, Paper presented at the 4th European Evaluation Society conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, 12-14 Oct.
33. Kearns, K. (1996) Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34. Leach, S., J. Stewart and K. Walsh (1994) The Changing Organisation and Management of Local Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
35. Leeuw, F. (2003) ‘Reconstructing Program Theories: Methods Available and Problems to be Solved’, American Journal of Evaluation 24(1): 5-20.
36. McAdam, R. and T. Walker (2003) ‘An Inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within Best Value Implementation in UK Local Government’, Public Administration 81(4): 873-892.
37. Magd, H. and A. Curry (2003) ‘Benchmarking: Achieving Best Value in Public-Sector Organisations’, Benchmarking 10(3): 261-286.
38. Martin, S. (1999) ‘Visions of Best Value: Modernizing or Just Muddling Through?’, Public Money and Management 19(4): 57-61.
39. Martin, S. and I. Sanderson (1999) ‘Evaluating Public Policy Experiments: Measuring Outcomes, Monitoring Processes or Managing Pilots?’, Evaluation 5(3): 245-258.
40. North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. O'Neill, Baroness (2002) ‘Called to Account’, BBC Reith Lectures No. 3. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4 (site visited: 23 Feb. 2002).
42. Patton, M. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43. Pawson, R. and M. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.
44. Perri E (1997) Holistic Government. London: Demos.
45. Pierson, P. (2000) ‘When Effects Become Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change’, World Politics 45: 595-628.
46. Pratchett, L. (2002) ‘Local Government: From Modernisation to Consolidation’, Parliamentary Affairs 55(2): 331-346.
47. Rao, N. (2003) ‘Options for Change: Mayors, Cabinets or the Status Quo?’, Local Government Studies 29(1): 1-16.
48. Roberts, N. (2000) ‘The Synoptic Model of Strategic Planning and the GPRA: Lacking a Good Fit with the Political Context’, Public Productivity and Management Review 23(3): 297-311.
49. Robson, A. and V. B. Prabhu (2001) ‘What can we Learn from “Leading” Service Practitioners about Business Excellence?’, Managing Service Quality 11(4): 249-261.
50. Sanderson, I., T. Bovaird, P. Davis, S. Martin and A. Foreman (1998) Made to Measure: Evaluation in Practice in Local Government. London: Local Government Management Board.
51. Soukas, A., J. Peters and G. Green (2002) ‘Tackling Health Inequalities in Sheffield Health Action Zone: Delivering Change through a Local Strategic Partnership for Health’, Paper presented at the 5th European Evaluation Society conference, Seville, Spain, 10-12 Oct.
52. Stern, E. (1996) ‘Evaluation for Economic Development: Current Demands, Responses and Trends’, Evaluation 2(4): 453-458.
53. Stewart, J. (2002) ‘Will Best Value Survive?’, Public Money and Management 22(2): 4-5.
54. Ward, K. (2000) ‘A Critique in Search of a Corpus: Re-visiting Governance and Re-interpreting Urban Politics’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25: 169-185.
55. Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
56. Weiss, C. (1980) ‘Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1: 381-404.
57. Wilson, J. and A. Doig (2000) ‘Local Government Management: A Model for the Future?’, Public Management 2(1): 57-83.
58. Zapico-Goñi, E. (1997) ‘Performance Monitoring for Budget Management: A New Role of the Budget Center’, in J. Mayne and E. Zapico-Goñi (eds) Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience, pp. 67-100. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.