Theory-Based Stakeholder Evaluation

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 295-313

  Hansen, Morten Balle ^a   Vedung, Evert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

logic model; multilevel program; program theory; stakeholder evaluation; theory based evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956629013     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214010366174     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power-Utilization of social-science in public-policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 79-100.
2. Anthony, R.N., & Govindarajan, V. (2001). Management control systems. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.
3. Bickman, L. (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New directions for program evaluation (Series no.33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
4. Birckmayer, J.D., & Weiss, C.H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice-What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24, 407-431.
5. Bledsoe, K.L., & Graham, J.A. (2005). The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 302-319.
6. Chen, H.T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
7. Chen, H.T. (2005a). Practical program evaluation. Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8. Chen, H.T. (2005b). Program theory. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 340-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9. Chen, H.T. (2005c). Theory-driven evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 415-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001). From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7, 331-349.
11. Davidson, D. (2006). Radical interpretation. In D. Davidson (Ed.), The essential Davidson (pp. 184-195). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12. Donaldson, S.I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467-494.
14. FitzGibbon, C.T., & Morris, L.L. (1975). Theory-based evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 5, 1-4.
15. Friedman, V.J. (2001). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 161-181.
16. Galtung, J., & Naess, A. (1955). Gandhis politiske etikk. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
17. Hanberger, A., & Schild, I. (2004). Strategies to evaluate a university-industry knowledge-exchange programme. Evaluation, 10, 475-492.
18. Hansen, M.B., & Vedung, E. (2005). Fælles sprog i ældreplejens organisering. Evaluering af et standardiseret kategorisystem [Common Language in the organization of elder care. Evaluation of a standardized classification system]. Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
19. Hoogerwerf, A. (1990). Reconstructing policy theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 285-291.
20. Leeuw, F.L. (1991). Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation. Knowledge and Policy, 4, 73-92.
21. Leeuw, F.L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 5-20.
22. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23. McLaughlin, J.A., & Jordan, G.B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
24. Molas-Gallart, J., & Davies, A. (2006). Toward theory-led evaluation-The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 64-82.
25. Popper, K.R. (1985). The rationality principle. In D. Miller (Ed.), Popper selections (pp. 357-365). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Quine, W.V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Rogers, P.J. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 63-67.
28. Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E., & Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29. Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E., & Lipsey, M.W. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30. Sidani, S., & Sechrest, L. (1999). Putting program theory into operation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 227-238.
31. Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and varieties of complexity. Evaluation, 10, 58-76.
32. Suchman, E.A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
33. Swiss, J.E. (1991). Public management systems: Monitoring and managing government performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Turnbull, B. (2002). Program theory building: A strategy for deriving cumulative evaluation knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 275-290.
35. Vaessen, J. (2006). Programme theory evaluation, multicriteria decision aid and stakeholder values: a methodological framework. Evaluation, 12, 397-417.
36. Valovirta, V. (2002). Evaluation utilization as argumentation. Evaluation, 8, 60-80.
37. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
38. Weiss, C.H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
39. Weiss, C.H. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 68-81.
40. Worthen, B.R. (1996). The origins of theory-based evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17, 169-172.