Developmental evaluation (DE), essentially conceptualized by Patton over the past 30 years, is a promising evaluative approach intended to support social innovation and the deployment of complex interventions. Its use is often justified by the complex nature of the interventions being evaluated and the need to produce useful results in real time. Despite its potential advantages, DE appears not to have been very widely used in research. The authors of this article decided to use this emergent approach in two evaluative research projects in health promotion. This article, coming out of their experiences, aims to assess the appropriateness of DE in research and describes issues related to its use. First, DE is presented, along with the potential advantages of its use in research. This is followed by a discussion of tensions related its application encountered in two studies carried out by the authors. The key issues are related to the links between academic and evaluative objectives, the dual role of researcher and consultant, and the temporality of the process. Finally, weighing the advantages of DE against its challenges, the authors conclude with a diagnosis regarding the application of this approach in research.
AlkinM. C.ChristieC. A. (2005). Theorists’ models in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AlkinM. C.VoA. T.HansenM. (2012). Using logic models to facilitate comparisons of evaluation theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 38, 1–88. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.011
3.
AlvessonM. (2003). Methodology for close up studies—Struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46, 167–193.
4.
ArendtH. (1972). La crise de la culture: huit exercices de pensée politique. Paris, France: Gallimard.
5.
BeywlW. (2012). The evolutive role of evaluation: Just another choice or a unique stance?Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 219–221. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.004
6.
BrousselleA.ChampagneF.ContandriopoulosA.-P.HartzZ. (2011). L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes (2nd ed.). Montreal, Canada: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
7.
CampbellM.PattonM. Q.PatriziP. (2003). Changing stakeholder needs and changing evaluator roles: The Central Valley Partnership of the James Irvine Foundation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 459–469. doi:10.1016/s0149-7189(03)00062-4
8.
CartlandJ.Ruch-RossH. S.MasonM.DonohueW. (2008). Role sharing between evaluators and stakeholders in practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 460–477.
9.
ChampagneF.ContandriopoulosA.-P.TanonA. (2011). Utiliser L’évaluation. In BrousselleA.ChampagneF.ContandriopoulosA.-P.HartzZ. (Eds.), L’évaluation: Concepts et méthodes (2nd ed., pp. 277–308). Montreal, Canada: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
10.
ChernissC.FishmanD. B. (2004). The Mesquite “MicroSociety” school: Identifying organizational factors that facilitate successful adoption of an innovative program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 79–88.
11.
CloutierJ. (2003). Qu’est-ce que l’innovation sociale?Cahier du CRISES—Collection Études théoriques No. ET0313. Montréal, Canada: Centre de recherches des innovations sociales (CRISES).
ContandriopoulosA.-P.ReyL.BrousselleA.ChampagneF. (2012). Évaluer une intervention complexe: enjeux conceptuels, méthodologiques, et opérationnels. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 1–16.
14.
CookT. (2006). Collaborative action research within developmental evaluation. Evaluation, 12, 418–436. doi:10.1177/1356389006071293
15.
DenisJ.-L.LomasJ. (2003). Convergent evolution: The academic and policy roots of collaborative research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, 1–6. doi:10.1258/135581903322405108
DozoisE.LangloisM.Blanchet-CohenN. (2010). DE 201: Guide du praticien de l’évaluation évolutive. Montreal, Canada: J. W. McConnell Family Foundation, International Institute for Child Rights and Development, University of Victoria.
18.
DuboisN.LloydS.HouleJ.MercierC.BrousselleA.ReyL. (2011). Practice-based evaluation as a response to address intervention complexity. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 105–115.
19.
ElliottJ. (2005). Action research. In MathisonS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 8–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
FagenM. C.RedmanS. D.StacksJ.BarrettV.ThullenB.AltenorS.NeigerB. L. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Building innovations in complex environments. Health Promotion Practice, 12, 645–650. doi:10.1177/1524839911412596
21.
FassinD. (2000). Comment faire de la santé publique avec des mots. Une rhétorique à l’œuvre. Ruptures, 7, 58–78.
22.
FournierD. M. (2004). Evaluation. In MathisonS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 139–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
GambleJ. A. (2008). A developmental evaluation primer. Montreal, Canada: The J. W. McConnell Family Foundation.
24.
GlasgowR. E.EmmonsK. M. (2007). How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 413–433. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144145
25.
GlasgowR. E.LichtensteinE.MarcusA. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1261–1267.
26.
GreeneJ. C. (2013). Logic and evaluation theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 38, 71–73. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.017
27.
GröneO.JorgensenS. J.Garcia-BarberoM. (2004). Standards for health promotion in hospitals. Self-assessment tool for pilot implementation. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
28.
HartzZ. (2011). Creating a dialogue between the concepts of complexity paradigms and the pragmatic approaches proposed for evaluating complex interventions. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 115–119.
29.
HubermanM. (1987). Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization. Knowledge: Creation Diffusion Utilization, 8, 586–611.
30.
HugonM. A.SiebelC. (1988). Recherches impliquées—Recherche-action: le cas de l’éducation. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck-Wesmail.
31.
JacobS. (2010). Évaluation. In BoussaguetL.JacquotS.RavinetP. (Eds.), Dictionnaire des politiques publiques (pp. 201–208). Paris, France: Les Presses de Sciences Po.
32.
Levin-RozalisM. (2003). Evaluation and research: Differences and similarities. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18, 1–31.
33.
MacaulayA. C.CommandaL. E.FreemanW. L.GibsonN.McCabeM. L.RobbinsC. M.TwohigP. L. (1999). Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. North American primary care research group. British Medical Journal, 319, 774–778.
34.
MasonR.BoutilierM. (1996). The challenge of genuine power sharing in participatory research: The gap between theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 15, 145–152.
35.
MillerR. L. (2012). Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?Evaluation and Program Planning, 38, 77–80. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.019
36.
NutbeamD. (1999). Evaluating health promotion. British Medical Journal, 318, 404A.
37.
O’NeillM.StirlingA. (2006). Travailler à promouvoir la santé ou travailler en promotion de la santé? In O’NeillM.DupéréS. A.RootmanI. (Eds.), Promotion de la santé au Canada et au Québec. Perspectives critiques (pp. 42–61). Quebec, Canada: Presses de l’Université Laval.
38.
PattonM. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 15, 311–319. doi:10.1177/109821409401500312
39.
PattonM. Q. (1996a). A world larger than formative and summative. American Journal of Evaluation, 17, 131–144. doi:10.1177/109821409601700205
40.
PattonM. Q. (1996b). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
PattonM. Q. (1999). Organizational development and evaluation. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Special Issue, 93–114.
42.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
PattonM. Q. (2006). Evaluation for the way we work. The Non-Profit Quarterly, 13, 28–33.
PattonM. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford.
46.
PelikanJ.KrajicK.DietscherC. (2001). The Health Promoting Hospital (HPH): Concept and development. Patient Education and Counseling, 45, 239–243.
47.
PothC.PeiJ.PintoD. (2011). Integrating developmental evaluation within organizational culture. In BartonS. M.HedbergJ.SuzukiK. (Eds.), Proceedings of global learn2011 (p. 778). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
48.
PothC. A.PintoD.HoweryK. (2011). Addressing the challenges encountered during a developmental evaluation: Implications for evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 39–48.
PotvinL.BilodeauA.GendronS. (2008). Trois defis pour l’evaluation en promotion de la sante. Promotion & Education, 15, 17–21. doi:10.1177/1025382308093991
51.
PotvinL.BilodeauA.GendronS. (2011). Trois conceptions de la nature des programmes: implications pour l’évaluation de programmes complexes en santé publique. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 91–104.
52.
PotvinL.GoldbergC. (2006). Deux rôles joués par l’évaluation dans la transformation de la pratique en promotion de la santé. In O’NeillM.DupéréS.PedersonA.RootmanI. (Eds.), Promotion de la santé au Canada et au Québec, perspectives critiques (pp. 457–473). Quebec, Canada: Presses de l’Université Laval.
PreskillH.Russ-Eft. (2005). Building evaluation capacity: 72 activites for teaching and training. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
55.
ReyL.BrousselleA.DedobbeleerN. (2012). Logic analysis: Testing program theory to better evaluate complex interventions. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 61–89.
56.
RobsonC. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
57.
RootmanI.GoodstadtM.HyndmanB.McQueenD. V.PotvinL.SpringettJ.ZiglioE. (2001). Evaluation in health promotion, principles and perspectives. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization.
58.
RossiP. H. (2013). My views of evaluation and their origins. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed., pp 106–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59.
SaariE.KallioK. (2011). Developmental impact evaluation for facilitating learning in innovation networks. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 227–245.
60.
SchwandtT. A. (2005). The centrality of practice to evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 95–105.
61.
ScrivenM. (1976). Evaluation bias and its control. In GlassG. V. (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual (pp. 101–118). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
62.
ScrivenM. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. Evaluation Practice, 17, 151–161.
63.
ThiebautG.-C.BrousselleA.ContandriopoulosA.-P.ChampagneF.HartzZ. (2011). Positionner l’évaluateur face aux enjeux de l’évaluation. In BrousselleA.ChampagneF.ContandriopoulosA.-P.HartzZ. (Eds.), L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes (2nd ed., pp. 11–23). Montreal, Canada: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
64.
TorvatnH. (2008). Book review: Logic modeling methods in program evaluation, J.A. Frechtling. Wiley, Inc., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2007). Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 219–221. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.01.002
WeissC. H. (1972). Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
67.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.
68.
ZimmermanB. J.DuboisN.HouleJ.LloydS.MercierC.BrousselleA.ReyL. (2011). How does complexity impact evaluation? An introduction to the special issue. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, V–XX. Retrieved fromhttp://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/26691.pdf
