Unraveling theorists’ evaluation reality

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2005, Issue 106, 2005, Pages 111-128

  Alkin, Marvin C ^a   Christie, Christina A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054041185     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.155     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Alkin, M., and Christie, C., “An Evaluation Theory Tree.“In M.Alkin, Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
2. Baizerman, M., Compton, D. W., and Stockdill, S. H., “New Directions for ECB.“In D. W.Compton, M.Baizerman and S. H.Stockdill (eds.), The Art, Craft, and Science of Evaluation Capacity Building.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 93.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
3. Christie, C. A., “What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory.“In C. A.Christie (ed.), The Practice-Theory Relationship in Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 97.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
4. Cousins, J. B., and Whitmore, E., “Framing Participatory Evaluation.“In E.Whitmore (ed.), Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation.New Directions in Evaluation, no. 80.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
5. Donaldson, S. I., and Christie, C. A., “The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven. Determining Causality in Program Evaluation and Applied Research: Should Experimental Evidence Be the Gold Standard?“Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, forthcoming.
6. Fetterman, D. M., “Empowerment Evaluation: An Introduction to Theory and Practice.“In D. M.Fetterman, S. J.Kartarian and A.Wandersman (eds.), Empowerment Evaluation.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996.
7. House, E. R., Professional Evaluation: Social Impact and Political Consequences.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1993.
8. House, E. R., “Stakeholder Bias.“In C. A.Christie (ed.), The Practice-Theory Relation-ship in Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 97.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
9. House, E. R., and Howe, K. R., Values in Evaluation and Social Research.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999.
10. Patton, M. Q., Utilization-Focused Evaluation.(3rd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.
11. Preskill, H., and Torres, R. T., Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999.
12. Scriven, M., “Reflections.“In M.Alkin (ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
13. Shadish, W., Cook, T., and Leviton, L., Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
14. Stake, R. E., Standards-Based and Responsive Evaluation.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2003.
15. Stufflebeam, D. L., “The CIPP Model for Evaluation.“In T.Kellaghan and D. L.Stufflebeam (eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Evaluation.Norwood, Mass.: Kluwer, 2003.
16. Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1989.