Outsource versus in-house? An identification of organizational conditions influencing the choice for internal or external evaluators

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 43-63

  Pattyn, Valérie ^a   Brans, Marleen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894284111     PISSN: 08341516     EISSN: 00077720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brans, M., Pattyn, V., & De Peuter, B. (2011, September). The evaluation of labour market policies in Belgium: A meta-analysis. Paper submitted in the framework of the European Commission's Mutual Learning Programme: Peer review of Evaluation of labour market policies and programmes: Methodology and practice. United Kingdom.
2. Bursens, P. (1999). Impact van instituties op besluitvorming. Een institutioneel perspectief op besluitvorming in de communautaire pijler van de Europese Unie [The impact of institutions on decision-making. An institutional perspective on decision-making within the first pillar of the European Union] (Doctoral thesis, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium). Antwerpen, Belgium: UA.
3. Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Conley-Tyler, M. (2005). A fundamental choice: Internal or external evaluation? Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 4(1 & 2), 3-11.
5. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6. De Meur, G. (1996). La comparaison des systèmes politiques: Recherche des similarities et des differences. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 3(2), 405-437.
7. De Meur, G., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (1994). Comparing political systems: Establishing similarities and dissimilarities. European Journal of Political Research, 26(2), 193-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1994. tb00440.x
8. De Meur, G., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (1996). Conditions of authoritarianism, fascism and democracy in inter-war Europe: Systematic matching and contrasting of cases for "small n" analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(4), 423-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00104140960 29004003
9. De Meur, G., & Gottcheiner, A. (2009). The logic and assumptions of MDSO/MSDO designs. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 208-221). London, UK: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781446249413.n12
10. De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., & Yamasaki, S. (2009). Addressing the critiques of QCA. In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualititative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452226569.n7
11. Fetterman, D. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Furubo, J. E., Rist, R. C., & Sandahl, R. (Eds.). (2002). International atlas of evaluation. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
13. IAVA. (2007, 2008, 2009). Jaarverslag van het Auditcomité en het Agentschap Interne Audit van de Vlaamse Administratie [Annual Report of the Audit Committee and the Agency Internal Audit of the Flemish Administration]. Brussels, Belgium: IAVA.
14. Kiesling, H. J. (2000). Collected goods, Neglected goods: Dealing with methodological failure in the social sciences. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/4077
15. Mathison, S. (1991). What do we know about internal evaluation? Evaluation and Program Planning, 14(3), 159-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149- 7189(91)90051-H
16. Mathison, S. (2011). Internal evaluation, historically speaking. In B. B. Volkov & M. E. Baron (Eds.), Internal evaluation in the 21st century, New Directions for Evaluation, No. 132, 13-23.
17. Mill, J. S. (1973 [1843]). Of the four methods of experimental inquiry, chap. 8. In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. 7, A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
18. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. London, UK: University of California Press.
19. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor centered institutionalism in policy research. Oxford, UK: Westview Press.
21. Scriven, M. (1980). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22. Sonnichsen, R. C. (1994). Effective internal evaluation: An approach to organizational learning. In F. L. Leeuw, R. C. Rist, & R. C. Sonnichsen (Eds.), Can governments learn? (pp. 125-141). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
23. Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). High impact internal evaluation: A practitioner's guide to evaluating and consulting inside organizations. London, UK: Sage.
24. Vedung, E. (2009). Public policy and program evaluation (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
25. Vlaams Parlement. (2003). Kaderdecreet Bestuurlijk Beleid [Framework Decree 'Better Administrative Policy']. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
26. Volkov, B. B. (2011). Internal evaluation a quarter-century later: A conversation with Arnold J. Love. In B. B. Volkov & M. E. Baron (Eds.), Internal evaluation in the 21st century. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 132, 5-12.
27. Wildavsky, A. (1972). The self-evaluating organization. Public Administration Review, 32(5), 509-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/975158
28. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.