This article is intended to stimulate a dialogue between program theory evaluation and action science for the purposes of cross-fertilization and mutual enrichment. Both program theory evaluation and action science use the concept of implicit “theories of action” as a central construct in the study of social practice. However, an action science approach suggests a wider understanding of program theory that (1) specifies the links between individual reasoning and behavior to program implementation, and (2) accounts for how programs deal with dilemmas, conflict, and error. This paper begins with a systematic, though not exhaustive, comparison of program theory evaluation and action science. It analyzes an exemplar of program theory evaluation from an action science perspective to illustrate a subtheory, “designed blindness,” and its impact on both program implementation and the evaluation itself. It then offers a theory for overcoming designed blindness. Finally, this article argues that action science concepts and skills can enable program theory evaluators to be more effective in confronting defensiveness and in facilitating learning among stakeholders when there is a gap between “espoused” program theory and “theory-in-use.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. New York: Harper Business.
3.
Argyris, C. (1986). Skilled incompetence. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 74-79.
4.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-109.
5.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77-85.
7.
Argyris, C. (1997). Field theory as a basis for scholarly consulting. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 809-824.
8.
Argryis, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theories in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
11.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
12.
Bickman, L. (2000). Summing up program theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 103-112.
13.
Bowen, K. (1999). Development of local program theory: Using theory-oriented evaluation to make a difference. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, Fl.
14.
Bowen, K. (2000). Development of local program theory: Using theory-oriented methods to make a difference, Field Methods, 12(2), 129-152.
15.
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Cole, G. E. (1999). Advancing the development and application of theory-based evaluation in the practice of public health. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 453-470.
17.
Cook, T. (2000). The false choice between theory-driven evaluation and experimentation. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 27-34.
18.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2000). From program theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic, and competing programs. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association, Honolulu, HI.
19.
Davidson, J. (2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 17-26.
20.
Dearborn, D., & Simon, H. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the Department Identifications of Executives. Sociometry, 284-295.
21.
Dell-Piana, G. (1999). Toward a context-based and dilemma-based model of program implementation theory to guide program evaluation. Mechanisms, 3, 12-21.
22.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
23.
Diefendorf, M. (1999). The NECTAS logic model: Its development, theory, and uses. Poster presented at the American Association Annual Conference, Orlando, Fl.
24.
Donaldson, S. I., & Chen, H. T. (2001). Theory-driven program evaluation: State-of-the-art at the turn of the century. Unpublished manuscript.
25.
Edmondson, A. (1996). Three faces of Eden: The persistence of competing theories and multiple diagnoses in organizational intervention research. Human Relations, 49(5), 571-595.
26.
Fetterman, D. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
27.
Friedman, V. (2000). Action science: creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. In H. Bradbury & P. Reason (Eds.), The handbook of action research (pp. 159-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Friedman, V. (2001). Individual as agent of organizational learning. In D. Meinholf, A. Berthoin-Antal, J. Child, & Y. Nonaka (Eds.), The handbook of organizational learning (pp. 398-414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
Friedman, V. J., & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Shifting cognitive gears: Overcoming obstacles on the road to Model 2. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(1), 118-137.
30.
Friedman, V. J., & Lipshitz, R. (1994). Human resources or politics: Framing the problem of appointing managers in an organizational democracy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(4), 438-457.
31.
Funnel, S. (1997). Program logic: An adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs. Evaluation New and Comments,5-17.
32.
Funnel, S. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. New Directions in Evaluation, 87, 91-102.
33.
Huebner, T. (2000). Theory-based evaluation: Gaining a shared understanding between school staff and evaluators. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 79-90.
34.
Isaacs, W. (1993). Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.
35.
Lewin, K. (1931). The conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in contemporary psychology. Republished in M. Gold (Ed.), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader! (pp. 37-66). Washington, D.C.: The American Psychological Association, 1999.
36.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
37.
Lipsey, M., & Pollard, J. (1989). Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 317-328.
38.
Lipskey, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
39.
Lipshitz, R. (2000). Chic, mystique, and misconception: Argyris and Schön and the rhetoric of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 456-473.
40.
March, J., & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
41.
McLaughlin, J., & Jordan, G. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27(1).
42.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1985). Implementation realities and evaluation design. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 96-120). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Perrow, C. (1970) Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
45.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999) Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
47.
Putnam, R. (1993). Unlocking organizational routines that prevent learning. The Systems Thinker, (August), 1-4.
48.
Rogers, P. (2000). Causal models in program theory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 47-56.
49.
Rogers, P., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T., & Hasci, T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5-13.
50.
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations and communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51.
Rothman, J., & Friedman, V. (2001). Conflict, identity, and organizational learning. In D. Meinholf, A. Berthoin-Antal, J. Child, & Y. Nonaka (Eds.), The handbook of organizational learning (pp. 582-597). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
Rothman, J., & Friedman, V. (1999), Action evaluation: Helping to define, assess and achieve organizational goals. Presented at the American Association Conference in Orlando, Florida, and published in the Action Evaluation web site http://www.aepro.org/inprint/papers/aedayton.html.
53.
Rothman, J., & Friedman, V. (2000). Action evaluation as a means of knowledge creation in social-educational programs. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Honolulu, HI.
54.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
55.
Schmitz, C. (1999). Everything you wanted to know about logic models but were afraid to ask. Paper presented at the American Association Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.
56.
Schneider, A. L. (1982). Studying policy implementation. Evaluation Review6(6), 715-730.
57.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
58.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. New York: Basic Books.
59.
Schön, D. A. (1997). Theory-of-action evaluation. Paper presented to the Harvard Evaluation Task Force.
60.
Schön, D., Drake, W., & Miller, R. (1984). Social experimentation as reflection-in-action. Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization, 6(1), 5-36.
61.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
62.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
63.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Currency Doubleday.
64.
Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, 89, 37-39.
65.
Suchman, E. A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
66.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
67.
Weick, K., & Bougon, M. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to success and failure. In H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), The thinking organization: Dynamics of organization social cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
68.
Weiss, C. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
69.
Wholely, J., Scanlon, J., Duffy, H., Fukumoto, J., & Vogt, L. (1971). Federal evaluation policy: Analyzing the effects of public programs. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
