Exploring the necessary conditions for evaluation use in program change

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 159-178

  Ledermann, Simone ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

context; evaluation use; mechanisms; necessary conditions; qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860170037     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214011411573     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alkin M.A guide for evaluation decision makers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985:.
2. Alkin M.C.,Daillak R.,White P.Using evaluations Does evaluation make a difference?. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1979:.
3. Astbury B.,Leeuw F.L.Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 2010;31:363-381.
4. Amenta E.,Poulsen J.D.Where to begin: A survey of five approaches to selecting independent variables for Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Sociological Methods & Research. 1994;23:22-53.
5. Balthasar A.The effects of the institutional design on the utilization of evaluation.Evaluation. 2006;12:353-371.
6. Balthasar A.Institutionelle Verankerung und Verwendung von Evaluationen [Institutional anchorage and utilization of evaluations]. Chur/Zürich: Rüegger 2007:.
7. Befani B.,Ledermann S.,Sager F.Realistic evaluation and QCA: Conceptual parallels and an empirical application.Evaluation. 2007;13:171-192.
8. Berg-Schlosser D.,De Meur G.Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Rihoux B.Ragin C.C., ed. Los Angeles, CA, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage; 2009:19-32.
9. Advances in mixed methods research. Bergman M.M., ed. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage; 2008:.
10. Rethinking social inquiry. Brady H.E.Collier D., ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2004:.
11. Brandon P.R.,Singh J.M.The strength of the methodological warrants for the findings of research on program evaluation use.American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;30:123-157.
12. Cousins J.B.,Leithwood K.A.Current empirical research on evaluation utilization.Review of Educational Research. 1986;56:331-364.
13. Cronbach L.J.Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1982:.
14. De Meur G.,Rihoux B.L'analyse quali-quantitative comparée (AQQC-QCA): Approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines [Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approach, techniques and applications in the humanities]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Bruylant-Academia; 2002:.
15. Fleischer D.N.,Christie C.A.Evaluation use: Results from a survey of U.S. American evaluation association members.American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;30:158-175.
16. Frey K.,Ledermann S.Evidence-based policy: A concept in geographical and substantive expansion - Introduction to a special issue.German Policy Studies. 2010;6:1-15.
17. Geertz C.The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1973:.
18. George A.L.,Bennett A.Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005:.
19. Goertz G.Assessing the trivialness, relevance, and relative importance of necessary or sufficient conditions in social science.Studies in Comparative International Development. 2006a;41:88-109.
20. Goertz G.Social science concepts: A user's guide. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press; 2006b:.
21. Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications. Goertz G.Starr H., ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003:.
22. Grofman B.,Schneider C.Q.An introduction to crisp set QCA, with a comparison to binary logistic regression.Political Research Quarterly. 2009;62:662-672.
23. Henry G.T.,Mark M.M.Beyond use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions.American Journal of Evaluation. 2003;24:293-314.
24. Jewell C.,Bero L.Public participation and claimsmaking: Evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California's ergonomics rulemaking.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2007;17:625-650.
25. Johnson K.,Greenseid L.O.,Toal S.A.,King J.A.,Lawrenz F.,Volkov B.Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005.American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;30:377-410.
26. The program evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:.
27. Kirkhart K.E.Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence.New Directions for Evaluation. 2000;2000:5-23.
28. Lijphart A.The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research.Comparative Political Studies. 1975;8:158-177.
29. Mahoney J.,Goertz G.A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research.Political Analysis. 2006;14:227-249.
30. Mark M.M.,Henry G.T.The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence.Evaluation. 2004;10:35-57.
31. Mayring P.Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (8th ed.) Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.Weinheim and Basel: Beltz; 2003:.
32. Merkens H.Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch [Qualitative research: A handbook]. 2003). Auswahlverfahren, Sampling, Fallkonstruktion [Selection strategies, sampling, case construction]. In FlickU.von KardorffE.SteinkeI. (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch [Qualitative research: A handbook] (2nd ed., pp. 286-299). Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Flick U.von Kardorff E.Steinke I., ed. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt; 2003:286-299.
33. Patton M.Q.Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage; 1997:.
34. Pawson R.,Tilley N.Realistic evaluation. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: Sage; 1997:.
35. Przeworski A.,Teune H.The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience; 1970:.
36. Ragin C.C.The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA, and London: University of California Press; 1987:.
37. Ragin C.C.Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; 1994:.
38. Ragin C.C.Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press; 2000:.
39. Ragin C.C.Compasss Working Paper. 2005:.
40. Ragin C.C.Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL and London: Chicago University Press; 2008:.
41. Rihoux B.Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research.International Sociology. 2006;21:679-706.
42. Rihoux B.,Lobe B.The SAGE handbook of case-based methods. Byrne D.Ragin C.C., ed. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage; 2009:222-242.
43. Rihoux B.,Ragin C.C.Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Los Angeles, CA, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage; 2009:.
44. Sager F.,Ledermann S.Politikberatung [Policy Advice]. Bröchler S.Schützeichel R., ed. Stuttgart: UTB; 2008:310-325.
45. Schneider C.Q.,Wagemann C.Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) und Fuzzy Sets: Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen [Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy sets: An course book for current and aspiring users]. Opladen and Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich; 2007:.
46. Ongoing evaluation programme for 2002-2003 of SDC. SDC: Berne; 2002:.
47. SDC. (2004). 10 principles to ensure successful use of evaluations. SDC: Berne. Retrieved May 1, 2011, fromhttp://www.deza.admin.ch.
48. Skolits G.J.,Morrow J.A.,Burr E.M.Reconceptualizing evaluator roles.American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;30:275-295.
49. Spinatsch M.International atlas of evaluation. Furubo J.E.Rist R.C.Sandahl R., ed. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction; 2002:375-391.
50. Thomas V.Evaluation systems, ethics, and development evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 2010;31:540-548.
51. Valovirta V.Evaluation utilization as argumentation.Evaluation. 2002;8:60-80.
52. Weiss C.H.Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education. Weiss C.H., ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1972:.
53. Weiss C.H.Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?.American Journal of Evaluation. 1998;19:21-33.
54. Weiss C.H.,Bucuvalas M.J.Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers' frames of reference for social science research.American Sociological Review. 1980;45:302-313.
55. Weiss C.H.,Murphy-Graham E.,Birkeland S.An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E.American Journal of Evaluation. 2005;26:12-30.
56. Yamasaki S.,Rihoux B.Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Rihoux B.Ragin C.C., ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage; 2009:123-145.