Some reflections on Pawson's Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto

Evaluation

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 383-401

  Astbury, Brad ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

causal explanation; realist evaluation; science of evaluation; theory building

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885651410     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389013505039     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists' Views and Influences. 2013) Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists' Views and Influences, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Alkin M, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2013:.
2. Bhaskar RA Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1975:.
3. Bhaskar RThe Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1979:.
4. Blamey A,Mackenzie M.Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?.Evaluation. 2007;13 (4): 439-55.
5. Bloor DKnowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1976:.
6. Byng R,Norman I,Redfern S,Jones R.Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation.BMC Health Service Research. 2008;8:274.
7. Campbell DTThe psychology of Egon Brunswik. Hammond KR, ed. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1966:81-106.
8. Chelimsky EEvaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Chelimsky EShadish WR, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1997:1-26.
9. Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Chelimsky EShadish WR, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1997:.
10. Chen H-TTheory-Driven Evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1990:.
11. Chen H-TPractical Program Evaluation: Assessing and Improving Planning, Implementation, and Effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:.
12. Chen H-T,Turner NC.Formal theory versus stakeholder theory: new insights from a tobacco-focused prevention program evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 2012;33 (3): 395-413.
13. Cook TD,Campbell DTQuasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1979:.
14. Coryn CLS,Noakes LA,Westine CD,Schröter DC.A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice: from 1990 to 2009.American Journal of Evaluation. 2011;32 (2): 199-226.
15. Cronbach LJ.Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist. 1975;30 (2): 116-27.
16. Cronbach LJDesigning Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1982:.
17. Cronbach LJToward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1980:.
18. Davis P.The limits of realist evaluation: surfacing and exploring assumptions in assessing the best value performance regime.Evaluation. 2005;11 (3): 275-95.
19. Donaldson SIProgram Theory-Driven Evaluation Science: Strategies and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007:.
20. Duguid S,Pawson R.Education, change, and transformation: the prison experience.Evaluation Review. 1998;22 (4): 470-95.
21. Dunn WN.Reforms as arguments.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1982;3:293-326.
22. Dunn WN.Pragmatic eliminative induction: proximal range and context validation in applied social experimentation.Philosophica. 1997;60:75-112.
23. Elsworth GR.Arguing challenges to validity in field research: a realist perspective.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1994;15 (3): 321-43.
24. Feinstein O.Realistic evaluation [book review].Evaluation. 1998;4 (2): 243-6.
25. Gill M,Turbin VSurveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Painter KTilley N, ed. New York: Criminal Justice Press; 1999:179-200.
26. Greener I,Mannion R.A realistic evaluation of practice-based commissioning.Policy and Politics. 2009;37 (1): 57-73.
27. Greenhalgh T,Humphrey C,Hughes J,Macfarlane F,Butler C,Pawson R.How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London.The Millbank Quarterly. 2009;87 (2): 391-416.
28. Guba EG,Lincoln YSFourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1989:.
29. Harre RThe Philosophies of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1972:.
30. Hesse MBThe Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan; 1974:.
31. House ER.Realism in research.Educational Researcher. 1991;20 (6): 2 25-9.
32. Julnes G,Mark MM,Henry GT.Promoting realism in evaluation: realistic evaluation and the broader context.Evaluation. 1998;4 (4): 483-506.
33. Lemire ST,Nielsen SB,Dybdal L.Making contribution analysis work: a practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 294-309.
34. Locke JAn Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Winkler K., ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company; 1996 [1690]:.
35. Mark MMAdvances In Program Theory. Bickman L, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990:51.
36. Mark MM,Henry GT,Julnes GEvaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000:.
37. Martinson R.What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.The Public Interest. 1974;35:22-54.
38. Merton RKOn the Shoulders Of Giants: A Shandean Postscript. New York: Free Press; 1965:.
39. Merton RKSocial Theory and Social Structure. 1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, 3rd edn.New York: Free Press.New York: Free Press; 1968:.
40. Miller RL,Campbell R.Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: an empirical review.American Journal of Evaluation. 2006;27 (3): 296-319.
41. Monaghan M.An interview with Ray Pawson.Evidence & Policy. 2012;8 (4): 511-15.
42. Pawson R.Empiricist explanatory strategies: the case of causal modelling.Sociological Review. 1978;26:613-45.
43. Pawson R.Empiricist measurement strategies: a critique of the multiple indicator approach to measurement.Quality and Quantity. 1980;14 (5): 651-78.
44. Pawson R.Desperate measures.British Journal of Sociology. 1982;33 (1): 35-63.
45. Pawson R.Language and measurement: a reply to Coxon.British Journal of Sociology. 1983;34 (4): 491-7.
46. Pawson R.On the level: measurement scales and sociological theory.Bulletin of Sociological Methodology. 1986;11 (1): 49-82.
47. Pawson RA Measure for Measures: A Manifesto for Empirical Sociology. London: Routledge; 1989:.
48. Pawson REvidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE; 2006:.
49. Pawson R.Invisible mechanisms.Evaluation Journal of Australasia. 2008;8 (2): 3-13.
50. Pawson RMind the Gap: Perspectives on Policy Evaluation and the Social Sciences. Comparative Policy Evaluation. Vaessen JLeeuw FL, ed. London: Transaction Publishers; 2010:171-203.
51. Pawson R.From the library of.Evaluation. 2011;17 (2): 193-6.
52. Pawson R,Manzano-Santaella A.A realist diagnostic workshop.Evaluation. 2012;18 (2): 176-91.
53. Pawson R,Tilley N.Monstrous thoughts: weaknesses in the strong programme of the sociology of science.University of Leeds Occasional Papers in Sociology, No. 14. 1982;:.
54. Pawson R,Tilley NYearbook of Correctional Education. Duguid S, ed. Burnaby, BC: Institute for the Humanities, Simon Fraser University; 1992:19-49.
55. Pawson R,Tilley N.What works in evaluation research?.British Journal of Criminology. 1994;34 (3): 291-306.
56. Pawson R,Tilley NRealistic Evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997:.
57. Pawson R,Tilley N.Realistic evaluation bloodlines.American Journal of Evaluation. 2001;22 (3): 317-24.
58. PawsonRTilleyN (2004) Realist Evaluation: The Magenta Book Guidance Notes. London: Cabinet Office. URL (consulted 12May2008): http://dprn.fss.uu.nl/Realistic%20Evaluation.pdf.
59. Pawson R,Wong G,Owen L.Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: the predicament of evidence-based policy.American Journal of Evaluation. 2011;32 (4): 518-46.
60. Pedersen LH,Rieper O.Is realist evaluation a realistic approach for complex reforms?.Evaluation. 2008;14 (3): 271-93.
61. Popper KUnended Quest: An Intellectual Biography. London: Fontana; 1976:.
62. Rycroft-Malone J,Fontenla M,Bick D,Seers K.A realistic evaluation: the case of protocol-based care.Implementation Science. 2010;5:38.
63. Scriven M.The fine line between evaluation and explanation.Evaluation Practice. 1994;15 (1): 75-7.
64. Scriven M.Minimalist theory: the least theory that practice requires.American Journal of Evaluation. 1998;19 (1): 57-70.
65. Shadish WR.The logic of generalization: five principles common to experiments and ethnographies.American Journal of Community Psychology. 1995;23 (3): 419-28.
66. Shadish WR,Cook TD,Campbell DTExperimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002:.
67. Shadish WR,Cook TD,Leviton LCFoundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1991:.
68. Stufflebeam DL,Shinkfield AJEvaluation Theory, Models, & Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2007:.
69. Tilley NUnderstanding car parks, crime and CCTV: evaluation lessons from Safer Cities. London: Home Office; 1993:.
70. Tilley N.Experimentation and criminal justice policies in the United Kingdom.Crime & Delinquency. 2000;46 (2): 194-213.
71. Trevisan MS.Evaluability assessment from 1986 to 2006.American Journal of Evaluation. 2007;28 (3): 290-303.
72. Weiss CHNew Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Connell JKubisch ASchorr LBWeiss CH, ed. New York: Aspen Institute; 1995:.
73. Weiss CHProgress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice and Methods. Rog DJFournier D, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997a:55-41.
74. Weiss CH.How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?.Evaluation Review. 1997b;21 (4): 501-24.
75. Weiss CHEvaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences. Alkin MC, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2004:153-68.