Realistic Evaluation and QCA: Conceptual Parallels and an Empirical Application

Evaluation

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 171-192

  Befani, Barbara ^a   Sager, Fritz ^c  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b Policy Research and Consulting   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

environmental impact assessment; evaluation synthesis; methodology; QCA; realistic evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147148512     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389007075222     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Befani, B. and F. Sager (2005) ‘QCA as a Tool for Realistic Evaluations’, in H. Grimm and B. Rihoux (eds) Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis and Evaluation. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. De Meur, G. and B. Rihoux (2002) L'analyse quali-quantitative comparée (AQQC-QCA): Approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines. Louvain-la-Neuve: Bruylant-Academia.
3. Flick, U. (2000) Qualitative Forschung: Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
4. Flick, U., E. von Kardorff and I. Steinke (2003) ‘Was ist qualitative Forschung? Einleitung und Überblick’, in U. Flick, E. von Kardorff and I. Steinke (eds) Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, pp. 13—29. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
5. Ledermann, S. (2004) Wozu denn wissenschaftlich? Bern: University of Bern, Institute of Political Science (Masters thesis).
6. Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York and London: Free Press.
7. Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8. Pawson, R. (2002a) Does Megan's Law Work? A Theory-Driven Systematic Review. Working Paper, London: ESRC UK, Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
9. Pawson, R. (2002b) Evidence and Policy and Naming and Shaming. Working Paper, London: ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
10. Pawson, R. (2002c) ‘ Evidence-Based Policy: In Search of a Method ’, Evaluation 8(2): 157—81.
11. Pawson, R. (2002d) ‘ Evidence-Based Policy: The Promise of “Realist Synthesis ”’, Evaluation 8(3): 340-58.
12. Pawson, R. (2003) ‘ Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory ’, Evaluation 9(4): 471-90.
13. Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.
14. Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15. Ragin, C.C. (1994) Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
16. Ragin, C.C. (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
17. Ragin, C.C., K.A. Drass and S. Davey (2003)‘Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis’, Tucson, Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona (Software).
18. Rihoux, B., G. De Meur, S. Yamasaki and S. Ronsse (2003) ‘Inventory of Good Practices in QCA’, URL (accessed 14 June 2005): http://www.compasss.org/Didactics1GB.htm
19. Sager, F. and W. Schenkel (2004) Evaluation UVP. Bern: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (Umwelt-Materialien Nr. 175).
20. Stame, N. (2004) ‘ Theory-Based Evaluation and Types of Complexity ’, Evaluation 10(1): 58—76.