Evaluation and economics each have distinct approaches to valuing. These approaches are traditionally separated by disciplinary boundaries. However, they can and should be combined. Value for money (VFM), in particular, is a shared domain of the two disciplines, because it is an evaluative question about the economic problem of resource use. A theoretical and practical model for combining valuing approaches has been developed through doctoral research. This article presents and reflects on an example – an international development programme where VFM has been assessed using mixed methods (qualitative, quantitative and economic). Under this approach, evaluative reasoning provides the means for integrating economic values with other criteria and evidence. Deliberation with stakeholders strengthens the valuing process, enhancing validity, credibility and use.
AdlerM. D.PosnerE. A. (2006). New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Harvard University Press.
2.
DavidsonE. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. SAGE.
3.
DavidsonE. J. (2014). Methodological briefs: Evaluative reasoning (Impact Evaluation No. 4). UNICEF Office of Research.
4.
DeaneK. L.HarréN. (2016). Developing a thoughtful approach to evaluation: Values-driven guidelines for novice evaluators. Evaluation Matters – He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 2, 53–78.
5.
Department for International Development. (2011). DFID’s approach to value for money (VfM). DFID, UK Government.
6.
DickinsonP.AdamsJ. (2017). Values in evaluation – the use of rubrics. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 113–116.
7.
FournierD. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: A distinction between general and working logic. In FournierD. M. (Ed.), New directions for evaluation: Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps (No. 68, pp. 15–32). Jossey-Bass.
8.
GarganiJ. (2017). The leap from ROI to SROI: farther than expected?Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 116–126.
9.
GreeneJ. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Westminster Studies in Education, 28(2), 207–211.
10.
GriffithJ. C.Montrosse-MoorheadB. (2014). The value in validity. In GriffithJ. C.Montrosse-MoorheadB. (Eds.), New directions for evaluation: Revisiting truth, beauty, and justice: Evaluating with validity in the 21st century. (No. 142, pp. 17–30). John Wiley & Sons.
11.
JulnesG. (2012). Managing valuation. In JulnesG. (Ed.), New directions for evaluation: Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation (No. 133, pp. 3–15). John Wiley & Sons.
12.
KingJ. (2015). Use of cost-benefit analysis in evaluation. Letter to the editor. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(3), 37–41.
13.
KingJ. (2017). Using economic methods evaluatively. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(1), 101–113.
14.
KingJ. (2019a). Evaluation and value for money: Development of an approach using explicit evaluative reasoning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
KingJ.McKeggK.OakdenJ.WehipeihanaN. (2013). Rubrics: A method for surfacing values and improving the credibility of evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9(21), 11–20.
Kinnect group & Foundation North. (2016). Kia E Te Whakangao: Māori & Pacific Education Initiative—Value for investment evaluation report. Foundation North.
21.
LevinH. M.McEwanP. J. (2011). Cost-effectiveness analysis. SAGE.
22.
MartensK. S. R. (2018). Rubrics in program evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 18(1), 21–44.
23.
OakdenJ.KingJ. (2018). Evaluation. In TolichM.DavidsonC. (Eds.), Social science research in New Zealand: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 180–193). Auckland University Press.
24.
PattonM. Q. (2018a). A historical perspective on the evolution of evaluative thinking. In VoA.T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), New directions for evaluation: Evaluative thinking (No. 158, pp. 11–28). John Wiley & Sons.
25.
PattonM. Q. (2018b). Evaluation Science. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(2), 183–200.
26.
SchwandtT. (2015). Evaluation foundations revisited: Cultivating a life of the mind for practice. Stanford University Press.
27.
ScrivenM. (1980). The logic of evaluation. SAGE.
28.
ScrivenM. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. SAGE.
29.
ScrivenM. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367–382.
30.
ScrivenM. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. In FournierD. M. (Ed.), New directions for evaluation: Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps (No. 68, pp. 49–70). Jossey-Bass.
31.
ScrivenM. (2012). The logic of valuing. In JulnesG. (Ed.), New directions for evaluation: Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation (Vol. 133, pp. 17–28). John Wiley & Sons.
32.
SunsteinC. R. (2018). The Cost-benefit revolution. MIT Press.
33.
VoA. T.ArchibaldT. (2018). New directions for evaluative thinking. In VoA.T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), New directions for evaluation: Evaluative thinking (Vol. 158, pp. 139–147). John Wiley & Sons.
34.
WehipeihanaN.McKeggK. (2018). Values and culture in evaluative thinking: Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand. In VoA.T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), New directions for evaluation: Evaluative thinking (Vol. 158, pp. 93–107). John Wiley & Sons.
35.
YatesB. T. (1996). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 42. Analyzing costs, procedures, processes, and outcomes in human services. SAGE.
