Additionality: A Useful Way to Construct the Counterfactual Qualitatively?

Evaluation Journal of Australasia

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 28-35

  Hind, Julie ^a  

^a NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864395169     PISSN: 1035719X     EISSN: 25159372     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X1001000105     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bamberger M., 2006, Conducting quality impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints, The World Bank, Washington, DC
2. Bamberger M., Rugh J., & Mabry L., 2006, Real world evaluation: working under budget, time, date and political constraints, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
3. Blamey A., & Mackenzie M., 2007, ‘Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?’, Evaluation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 439–455
4. Campbell D., & Russo M.J., 1999, Social experimentation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
5. Carden F., Bamberger M., & Rugh J., 2009, Alternatives to the conventional counterfactual: follow-up note on Session 713 Think Tank, American Evaluation Association annual conference, November, Orlando, viewed 26 April 2010,
6. Carr S., Dancer S., Russell G., Tyler P., Robson B., Lawless P., & Haigh N., 2004, Additionality guide: a standard approach to assessing the additional impact of projects, 2nd edn, English Partnerships, London
7. Cook T.D., Scriven M., Coryn C.L.S., & Evergreen S.D.H., 2009, ‘Contemporary thinking about causation in evaluation: a dialogue with Tom Cook and Michael Scriven’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 105–117
8. Cummings R., 2006, ‘What if?: the counterfactual in program evaluation’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 6(new series), no. 2, pp. 6–15
9. Davidson E.J., 2000, ‘Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation’, in Petrosino A, (eds), Program theory in evaluation—opportunities: New directions for evaluation, 87, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
10. Davidson E.J., 2005, Evaluation methodology basics: the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
11. Garbarino S., & Holland J., 2009, Quantitative and qualitative methods in impact evaluation and measuring results: issues paper, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, Department for International Development, London
12. Gargani J., 2010, ‘A welcome change from debate to dialogue about causality’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 131–132
13. Georghiou L., 2002, ‘Impact and additionality of innovation policy’, paper presented to Six Countries Programme on Innovation, Spring Conference, Brussels, 28 February – 1 March
14. Georghiou L., & Clarysse B., 2006, ‘Introduction and synthesis’, in OECD (ed.), Government R&D funding and company behaviour: measuring behavioural additionality, OECD Publishing, Paris
15. Greene J.C., Lisey M.W., Schwandt T.A., Smith N.L., & Tharp R.G., 2007, ‘Method choice: five discussant commentaries’, in Julnes GJ, & Rog DJ, (eds), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology—building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation: New directions for evaluation, 113, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
16. House E., 2001, ‘Unfinished business: causes and values’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 309–315
17. International Finance Corporation 2008, Evaluating private sector development in developing countries: assessing the additionality of multilateral development banks—IFC's experience, IFC, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC
18. International Finance Corporation 2009, IFC's role and additionality: a primer, IFC, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, viewed 5 July 2009,
19. Julnes G., & Mark M.M., 1998, ‘Evaluation as sensemaking: knowledge construction in a realist world’, in Henry GT, Julnes G, & Mark MM, (eds), Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice: New directions for evaluation, 78, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
20. Kirkhart K.E., 2000, ‘Reconceptualizing evaluation use: an integrated theory of influence’, in Caracelli VJ, & Preskill H, (eds), The expanding scope of evaluation use: New directions for evaluation, 88, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
21. Kotvojs F., & Shrimpton B., 2007, ‘Contribution analysis’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 27–35
22. Leviton L.C., & Gutman M.A., 2010, ‘Overview and rationale for the systematic screening and assessment method’, in Leviton LC, Khan LK, & Dawkins N, (eds), The systematic screening and assessment method: finding innovations worth evaluating: New directions for evaluation, 125, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
23. Lipsey M.W., 2001, ‘Unsolved problems and unfinished business’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 325–328
24. Lewis D.K., 2001, Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Maiden, Massachusetts
25. Mackie J.L., 2002, The cement of the universe: a study of causation, Oxford Press, Oxford
26. Mark M.M., & Henry G.T., 1998, ‘Social programming and policy-making: a realist perspective’, in Henry GT, Julnes G, & Mark MM, (eds), Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice: New directions for evaluation, 78, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
27. Mark M.M., Henry G.T., & Julnes G., 1998, ‘A realist theory of evaluation practice’, in Henry GT, Julnes G, & Mark MM, (eds), Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice: New directions for evaluation, 78, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
28. Mayne J., 2001, ‘Addressing attribution through contribution analysis using performance measures sensibly’, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–24
29. Mohr L., 1999, ‘The qualitative method of impact analysis’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 69–84
30. Närfelt K-H, & Wildberger A., 2006, ‘Additionality and funding agencies: opening the black box’, paper presented at the New Frontiers in Evaluation Conference, Vienna, 24-25 April
31. OECD 2006, ‘Executive summary’, in OECD (ed.), Government R&D funding and company behaviour: measuring behavioural additionality, OECD Publishing, Paris
32. Owen J., 2006, Program evaluation: forms and approaches, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, New South Wales
33. Patton M.Q., 2002, Qualitative research and education methods, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
34. Patton M.Q., 2008, Utilization-focused evaluation, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
35. Pawson R., & Tilley N., 1998, Realistic evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
36. Rogers P.J., 2000, ‘Causal models in program theory evaluation’, in Petrosino A, (eds), Program theory in evaluation: challenges and opportunities: New directions for evaluation, 87, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
37. Rogers P., Petrosino A., Huebner T.A., & Hacsi T.A., 2000, ‘Program theory evaluation: practice, promise, and problems’, in Petrosino A, (eds), Program theory in evaluation: challenges and opportunities: New directions for evaluation, 87, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
38. Roldán J., 2002, ‘Designing a practical instrument for measuring developmental additionality: the IIC approach’, paper presented at inter-agency roundtable on additionality of private sector development programs and operations supported by the international financial institutions, Inter-American Investment Corporation, Washington, DC, 23 May
39. Rossi P.H., & Freeman H.E., 1993, Evaluation: a systematic approach, 5th edn, Sage, Newbury Park, California
40. Rossi P.H., Lipsey M.W., & Freeman H.E., 2004, Evaluation: a systematic approach, 7th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
41. Schweigert F., 2006, ‘The meaning of effectiveness in assessing community initiatives’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 416–436
42. Scriven M., 1991, Evaluation thesaurus, 4th edn, Sage, Newbury Park, California
43. Scriven M., 2008, ‘A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: an alternative approach to causal research’, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 11–24
44. Shadish W.R., Cook T.D., & Campbell D.T., 2002, Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Houghton Mifflin, Boston
45. Weiss C.H., 2000, ‘Which links in which theories shall we evaluate?’, in Petrosino A, (eds), Program theory in evaluation: challenges and opportunities: New directions for evaluation, 87, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
46. White H., 2010, ‘A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation’, Evaluation, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 153–164