The learning evaluations: A theoretical and empirical exploration

Evaluation Review

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 591-612

  Edelenbos, Jurian ^a   Van Buuren, Arwin ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Action research; Evaluation; Learning; Role evaluator

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOUSING; HUMAN; LEARNING; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STANDARD;

ENVIRONMENT DESIGN; GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS; HOUSING; HUMANS; LEARNING; MANAGEMENT AUDIT; NETHERLANDS; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

EID: 28444469829     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X05276126     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Abma, T. 1996. Responsive evaluating: Discourses, controversies and alliances in the postmodern. [In Dutch.] Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
2. _. 2000. Negotiated evaluating: "Fourth generation evaluation" of Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln. [In Dutch.] Bestuurskunde 17:393-403.
3. Abma, T., and R. E. Stake. 2001. Stake's responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. New Directions for Evaluation 92:7-22.
4. Alkin, M. C. 1990. Debates on evaluation. London: Sage.
5. Buijs, J. M. 2004. Action research: Research strategy for complex policy processes. [In Dutch.] Master's thesis, Tilburg University.
6. Dryzek, J. S. 1993. Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, ed. F. Fischer and J. Forester, 213-32. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7. Edelenbos, J., M. W. van Buuren, M. van As, M. Duijn, A. Slob, and W. Vermeulen. 2003. Environmental policy more of, for and through the citizen: Results of the learning evaluation study of the Stimulation Program Citizen and Environment. [In Dutch.] Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
8. Edelenbos, J., and M. van Eeten. 2001. The missing link: Processing variation in dialogical evaluation. Evaluation 1 (2): 211-17.
9. Fischer, F., and J. Forester, eds. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10. Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. London: Sage.
11. Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. House, E. R., and K. R. Howe. 1998. Deliberative democratic evaluation in practice. Boulder: University of Colorado.
13. _. 2000. Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 85:3-12.
14. House of Commons. 2001-2002. Motion Feenstra, Klein Molenkamp en Augusteijn-Esser. [In Dutch.] 28 000 XI: 21.
15. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Advisers as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Madaus, G. F., M. Scriven, and D. L. Stufflebeam. 1983. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.
17. Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Patton, M. Q. 1997. Utilization-focused evaluation: The next century text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Provus, M. N. 1971. Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.
20. Rossi, P. H., and H. E. Freeman. 1999. Evaluation: A systematic approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Schön, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
22. Schwandt, T. A. 1984. An examination of alternative models for socio-behavioral inquiry. PhD diss., Indiana University.
23. Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Shadish, W. R., ed. 1995. Guiding principles for evaluators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1991. Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Shulha, L. M., and J.B. Cousins. 1997. Evaluation use: Theory, research and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice 18 (3): 195-208.
27. Stake, R. E. 1983. Program evaluation: Particularly responsive evaluation. In Evaluation models, ed. G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, and D. L. Stufflebeam, 287-310. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
28. Steinmetz, A. 1983. The discrepancy evaluation model. In Evaluation models, ed. G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, and D. L. Stufflebeam, 79-100. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
29. Stringer, E. T. 1996. Action research: A handbook for practitioners. London: Sage.
30. Stufflebeam, D. L. 2001. Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation 89:8-98.
31. Stufflebeam, D. L., and A. J. Shinkfield. 1990. Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.
32. Tyler, R. W. 1942. General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research 35:492-501.
33. _. 1966. The objectives and plans for a national assessment of educational progress. Journal of Educational Measurement 3:1-10.
34. van der Knaap, P. 1995. Policy evaluation and learning: Feedback, enlightenment or argumentation? Evaluation 1 (2): 189-216.
35. Wadsworth, Y. 2001. Becoming responsive: And some consequences for evaluation as dialogue across distance. New Directions for Evaluation 92:45-58.
36. Weiss, C. H. 1998. Evaluation. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.