This article contributes to research on evaluation by examining the capacity and contribution of developmental evaluation for innovating. This case study describes the preformative development of an educational program (from conceptualization to pilot implementation) and analyzes the processes of innovation within a developmental evaluation framework. Developmental evaluation enhanced innovation by (a) identifying and infusing data primarily within an informing process toward resolving the uncertainty associated with innovation and (b) facilitating program cocreation between the clients and the developmental evaluator. Analysis into the demands of innovation revealed the pervasiveness of uncertainty throughout development and how the rendering of evaluative data helped resolve uncertainty and propelled development forward. Developmental evaluation enabled a nonlinear, coevolutionary program development process that centered on six foci—definition, delineation, collaboration, prototyping, illumination, and reality testing. This article concludes by encouraging evaluators to understand the demands of innovation and the value of design thinking when innovating.
AlkinM. C. (2003). Evaluation theory and practice: Insights and new directions. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 81–89.
2.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–71.
3.
BrownT. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84–92.
4.
BrownT.WyattJ. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8, 30–35.
5.
ChenH. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
ChristensenClayton M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
ChristieC. A. (2012). Advancing empirical scholarship to further develop evaluation theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 1–18.
8.
DaviesA.Caulier-GriceJ.NormanW. (2012). Introduction to innovation: A literature review of the methods and policies for innovation, a deliverable of the project: ‘The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’ (TEPSIE), European Commission—7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
DruckerP. F. (1994, November). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 53–80.
11.
EoyangG. H. (2006). Human systems dynamics: A complexity approach to a complex evaluation. In WilliamsB.ImamI. (Eds.), Systems approaches to evaluation (pp. 75–88). Point Reyes, CA: Edge-Press/American Evaluation Association.
GarrisonD. R.KanukaH. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.
16.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
HenryG. T.MarkM. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In ChristieC. A. (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (Vol. 97, pp. 69–80). New Directions for Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
HoppeR.van de GraafH.van DijkA. (1987). Implementation research and policy design: Problem tractability, policy theory, and feasibility testing. International Review of Administrative Science, 53, 561–604.
21.
HouseE. R. (1977). The logic of evaluative argument (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, 7). Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation University of California.
22.
Innovation Network. (2012). State of evaluation 2012: Evaluation practice and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Retrieved fromhttp://stateofevaluation.org
23.
LangloisM.Blanchet-CohenN.BeerT. (2013). The art of the nudge: Five practices for developmental evaluators. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 27, 39–59.
24.
ParsonsB. (1998). Using a systems change approach to building communities. In The policymakers’ program: The first five years: Implementation tools (Vol. 2). St. Louis, MO: The Danforth Foundation.
PattonM. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
PhillsJ. A.DeiglmeierK.MillerD. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34–43.
32.
PothC.HoweryK.PintoD. (2011). Addressing the challenges encountered during a developmental evaluation: Implications for evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 39–48.
PreskillH.CatsambasT. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36.
SmithN. L. (1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 14, 237–242.
37.
SmithN. L. (2010). Introduction to the forum: Advances in evaluating evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 382.
38.
StakeR. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
StakeR. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
40.
StufflebeamD. L. (1983). Evaluation models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, 6, 117–141.
41.
WestleyF.ZimmermanB.PattonM. Q. (2006). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, Canada: Random House.
42.
WilliamsB.HummelbrunnerR. (2010). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
WilliamsB.ImamI. (Ed.). (2007). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Inverness, CA: EdgePress.
44.
YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
