Abma, T. A. (1998). Text in an evaluative context: Writing for dialogue. Evaluation, 4, 434-454.
2.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Chen, H-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.
4.
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). The evaluation of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Cronbach, L. J. and Associates (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-15.
7.
Goodyear, L. (2001). Representational form and audience understanding in evaluation: Advancing use and engaging postmodern pluralism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
8.
Greene, J. C. (1997). Evaluation as advocacy. American Journal of Evaluation, 18, 25-35.
9.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
MacNeil, C. (2000). The prose and cons of poetic representation in evaluation reporting. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 359-367.
12.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
14.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Rogers, P. J., Hacsi, T. A., Petrosino, A., & Huebner, T. A. (Eds.). (2000). Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, Number 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Schwandt, T. A. (1992). Better living through evaluation? Images of progress shaping evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 13, 135-144.
18.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997a). Evaluation as practical hermeneutics. Evaluation, 3, 69-84.
19.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997b). Reading the “problem of evaluation” in social inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 4-25.
20.
Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
21.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Reprinted in G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
23.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
24.
United Way of America (n.d.). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA.
25.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.
Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing so practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
27.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
Whitmore, E. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, Number 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2000). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI.
