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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evaluation (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2015-10, Vol.21 (4), p.467-480
Hauptverfasser: Leeuw, Frans L., Donaldson, Stewart I.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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