Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate
One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a mode...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evaluation (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2015-10, Vol.21 (4), p.467-480 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 480 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 467 |
container_title | Evaluation (London, England. 1995) |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Leeuw, Frans L. Donaldson, Stewart I. |
description | One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a modest contribution to clarifying this situation. We first present two typologies of evaluation theory and invite readers to join us in a discussion of the pros and cons of these typologies. We then present an impressionistic picture, mainly qualitative, of how ‘theory’ has featured in past issues of this journal. Many articles with a theoretical orientation have been published in Evaluation providing a rich though somewhat diffuse picture in which many of the types identified in our typologies are represented. Finally several suggestions are put forward to further strengthen the development of theoretical work in the evaluation profession. These are ‘theory knitting’, ‘theory layering’ and ‘theory-driven evaluation science’. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1356389015607712 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1790890771</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1356389015607712</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1790890771</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-f2da8caa0d72deaf536818f8c55c155c792c9640d75d44e3d5fc383e9b692e9d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LxDAQDaLgunr3WPBczTRN0ngRWVwVFgRZzyWbTGqXNV2TVth_b0o9iOBhmGHee_PxCLkEeg0g5Q0wLlilKHBBpYTiiMygFJBL4Ow41QnOR_yUnMW4pRREwWFG7tbv2IVD1voMv_Ru0H3b-dvsFe1gWt9kpvNuiKmXaW8z9KYbgm5GxOJG93hOTpzeRbz4yXPytnxYL57y1cvj8-J-lRvGoc9dYXVltKZWFha140xUULnKcG4ghVSFUaJMMLdlicxyZ1jFUG2EKlBZNidX09x96D4HjH29TZf4tLIGqWh6LD2dWHRimdDFGNDV-9B-6HCogdajTfVfm5IknyRRN_hr6H_8b3xhZq8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1790890771</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Leeuw, Frans L. ; Donaldson, Stewart I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Leeuw, Frans L. ; Donaldson, Stewart I.</creatorcontrib><description>One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a modest contribution to clarifying this situation. We first present two typologies of evaluation theory and invite readers to join us in a discussion of the pros and cons of these typologies. We then present an impressionistic picture, mainly qualitative, of how ‘theory’ has featured in past issues of this journal. Many articles with a theoretical orientation have been published in Evaluation providing a rich though somewhat diffuse picture in which many of the types identified in our typologies are represented. Finally several suggestions are put forward to further strengthen the development of theoretical work in the evaluation profession. These are ‘theory knitting’, ‘theory layering’ and ‘theory-driven evaluation science’.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1356-3890</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1461-7153</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1356389015607712</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Confusion</subject><ispartof>Evaluation (London, England. 1995), 2015-10, Vol.21 (4), p.467-480</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-f2da8caa0d72deaf536818f8c55c155c792c9640d75d44e3d5fc383e9b692e9d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-f2da8caa0d72deaf536818f8c55c155c792c9640d75d44e3d5fc383e9b692e9d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1356389015607712$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1356389015607712$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leeuw, Frans L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donaldson, Stewart I.</creatorcontrib><title>Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate</title><title>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</title><description>One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a modest contribution to clarifying this situation. We first present two typologies of evaluation theory and invite readers to join us in a discussion of the pros and cons of these typologies. We then present an impressionistic picture, mainly qualitative, of how ‘theory’ has featured in past issues of this journal. Many articles with a theoretical orientation have been published in Evaluation providing a rich though somewhat diffuse picture in which many of the types identified in our typologies are represented. Finally several suggestions are put forward to further strengthen the development of theoretical work in the evaluation profession. These are ‘theory knitting’, ‘theory layering’ and ‘theory-driven evaluation science’.</description><subject>Confusion</subject><issn>1356-3890</issn><issn>1461-7153</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UE1LxDAQDaLgunr3WPBczTRN0ngRWVwVFgRZzyWbTGqXNV2TVth_b0o9iOBhmGHee_PxCLkEeg0g5Q0wLlilKHBBpYTiiMygFJBL4Ow41QnOR_yUnMW4pRREwWFG7tbv2IVD1voMv_Ru0H3b-dvsFe1gWt9kpvNuiKmXaW8z9KYbgm5GxOJG93hOTpzeRbz4yXPytnxYL57y1cvj8-J-lRvGoc9dYXVltKZWFha140xUULnKcG4ghVSFUaJMMLdlicxyZ1jFUG2EKlBZNidX09x96D4HjH29TZf4tLIGqWh6LD2dWHRimdDFGNDV-9B-6HCogdajTfVfm5IknyRRN_hr6H_8b3xhZq8</recordid><startdate>201510</startdate><enddate>201510</enddate><creator>Leeuw, Frans L.</creator><creator>Donaldson, Stewart I.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201510</creationdate><title>Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate</title><author>Leeuw, Frans L. ; Donaldson, Stewart I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-f2da8caa0d72deaf536818f8c55c155c792c9640d75d44e3d5fc383e9b692e9d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Confusion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leeuw, Frans L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donaldson, Stewart I.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leeuw, Frans L.</au><au>Donaldson, Stewart I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</jtitle><date>2015-10</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>467</spage><epage>480</epage><pages>467-480</pages><issn>1356-3890</issn><eissn>1461-7153</eissn><abstract>One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a modest contribution to clarifying this situation. We first present two typologies of evaluation theory and invite readers to join us in a discussion of the pros and cons of these typologies. We then present an impressionistic picture, mainly qualitative, of how ‘theory’ has featured in past issues of this journal. Many articles with a theoretical orientation have been published in Evaluation providing a rich though somewhat diffuse picture in which many of the types identified in our typologies are represented. Finally several suggestions are put forward to further strengthen the development of theoretical work in the evaluation profession. These are ‘theory knitting’, ‘theory layering’ and ‘theory-driven evaluation science’.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1356389015607712</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1356-3890 |
ispartof | Evaluation (London, England. 1995), 2015-10, Vol.21 (4), p.467-480 |
issn | 1356-3890 1461-7153 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1790890771 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | Confusion |
title | Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T09%3A13%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Theory%20in%20evaluation:%20Reducing%20confusion%20and%20encouraging%20debate&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20(London,%20England.%201995)&rft.au=Leeuw,%20Frans%20L.&rft.date=2015-10&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=467&rft.epage=480&rft.pages=467-480&rft.issn=1356-3890&rft.eissn=1461-7153&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1356389015607712&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1790890771%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1790890771&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1356389015607712&rfr_iscdi=true |