Pragmatic support for policies on methodology

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2007, Issue 113, 2007, Pages 129-147

  Julnes, George ^a   Rog, Debra J ^b,c  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTAT   (United States)

^c Rockville Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249156900     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.219     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arrow, K., “Formal Theories of Social Welfare.” In P.Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas.New York: Scribner, 1973.
2. Barzelay, M., and Campbell, C., Preparing for the Future: Strategic Planning in the U.S. Air Force.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
3. Beckett, S., Worstward Ho.London: John Calder, 1983.
4. Caracelli, V. J., and Greene, J. C., “Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” In J. C.Greene, and J. 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, 1997.
5. Connell, J. P., Kubisch, A. C., Schorr, L. B., and Weiss, C. H., (eds.).New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts.Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1995.
6. Cook, T. D., and Payne, M. R., “Objecting to Objections to Using Random Assignment in Educational Research.” In F.Mosteller, and R.Boruch (eds.), Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 2002.
7. Datta, L-e., “A Pragmatic Basis for Mixed-Method Designs.” In J. C.Greene, and 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, 1997.
8. Dawid, A. P., “Causal Inference Without Counterfactuals.“Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2000, 95, 407-424.
9. Fulbright-Anderson, K., Kubisch, A. C., and Connell, J. P. (eds.).New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Theory, Measurement, and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1998.
10. Goldman, A. I., “What Is Justified Belief?.” In H.Kornblith (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.
11. Gramlich, E. M., A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990.
12. Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J., “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.“Educational Researcher, 2004, 33(7), 14-26.
13. Julnes, G., “Review of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference by W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, & D. T. Campbell.“Evaluation and Program Planning, 2004, 27(2), 173-185.
14. Julnes, G., “Experiment, Overview.” In K.Kempf-Leonard (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement.San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 2005.
15. Julnes, G., and Foster, E. M., “Crafting Evaluation in Support of Welfare Reform.” In G.Julnes, and E. M.Foster (eds.), Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
16. Julnes, G., and Mark, M. M., “Evaluation as Sensemaking: Knowledge Construction in a Realist World.” In G.Henry, G.Julnes, and M.Mark (eds.), Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
17. Julnes, G., Pang, D., Takemoto-Chock, N., Speidel, G., and Tharp, R., “The Process of Training in Processes.“Journal of Community Psychology, 1987, 15, 387-396.
18. Mark, M., Henry, G., and Julnes, G., Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
19. Maxwell, J. A., “Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research.“Harvard Educational Review, 1992, 62, 279-300.
20. Maxwell, J. A., “Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education.“Educational Researcher, 2004, 33(2), 3-11.
21. Menard, L., The Metaphysical Club.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.
22. Putnam, H., Pragmatism.Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
23. Mohr, L. B., The Causes of Human Behavior: Implications for Theory and Method in the Social Sciences.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.
24. Okun, A. M., Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1975.
25. Patton, M. Q., Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.
26. Rog, D. J., “Expanding the Boundaries of Evaluation: Strategies for Refining and Evaluating Ill-Defined Interventions.” In S.Friedman, and H. C.Haywood (eds.), Developmental Follow-Up: Concepts, Domains, and Methods.Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1994.
27. Rog, D. J., and Knickman, J., “Strategies for Comprehensive Initiatives.” In M.Braverman, N.Constantine, and J.Slater (eds.), Foundations and Evaluations: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
28. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., and Freeman, H. E., Evaluation, A Systematic Approach. (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
29. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
30. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Leviton, L. C., Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
31. Steinbrook, R., “Improving Protection for Research Subjects.“New England Journal of Medicine, 2002, 346(18), 1425-1430.
32. Stich, S. P., “A Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Evaluation.” In H.Kornblith (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.
33. Stiglitz, J. E., “Public Policy for a Knowledge Economy.” Remarks at the Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy Research, London, Jan. 27, 1999. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2006, from http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/jssp012799a.htm.
34. Stiglitz, J. E., and Heertje, A., The Economic Role of the State.Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
35. Stokey, E., and Zeckhauser, R.A Primer for Policy Analysis.New York: Norton, 1978.
36. U.S. Department of Education. “New Directions for Program Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Education.” Retrieved Dec. 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2002/04/evaluation.html
37. Weick, K. E., Making Sense of the Organization.Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2001.
38. Weiss, C. H., Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.
39. Wholey, J. S., Evaluation: Promise and Performance.Washington, D.C.: Urban Institution, 1979.
40. Wholey, J. S., “Evaluability Assessment.” In J. S.Wholey, H. P.Hatry, and K. E.Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.