AlkinM. C.ChristieC. A. (2005). Theorists’ models in action (Eds.). New Directions for Evaluation, no. 106. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
American Evaluation Association. (2013, revised). An evaluation roadmap for a more effective government. Retrieved May 12, 2014, fromhttp://www.eval.or/d/do/472
3.
ArgyrisC. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 390–406.
4.
ArgyrisC.SchonD. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
ArruñadaB.VázquezX. H. (2009). Behavioral assumptions and management ability: A tentative test. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
6.
AstleyW. G.Van de VenA. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 245–273.
7.
BarterN.RussellS. (2013). Organisational metaphors and sustainable development: Enabling or inhibiting?Sustainability Accounting, Management & Policy Journal, 4, 145–162.
8.
BeckU.GiddensA.LashS. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
BouldingK. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 1, 197–208.
CampbellD. T. (1973). The social scientist as methodological servant of the experimenting society. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 72–75.
12.
ChelimskyE. (2007). Factors influencing the choice of methods in federal evaluation practice. In JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation(New Directions for Evaluation, no. 133, pp. 13–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
ChelimskyE. (2012). Valuing, evaluation methods, and the politicization of the evaluation process. In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation(New Directions for Evaluation, no. 133, pp. 77–83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
ChelimskyE. (2014). Public-interest values and program sustainability: Some implications for evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 527–542.
15.
CookT. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In ShotlandR. L.MarkM. M. (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
17.
CronbachL. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.
18.
Dahler-LarsenP. (2011). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
DeetzS. (1996). Crossroads-describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, 191–207.
20.
DonaldsonL. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
FreemanM. (2010). Critical social theory and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 127. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
HouseE. R. (2015). Evaluating: Values, biases, and practical wisdom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
23.
JulnesG. (2012). Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest. In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation(New Directions for Evaluation, no. 133, pp. 109–129). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
JulnesG.BusteloM. (2014). Professional values and ethics in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 525–526.
25.
JulnesG.MarkM. (1998). Evaluation as sensemaking: Knowledge construction in a realist world. In HenryG.JulnesG.MarkM. (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice(New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78, pp. 33–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
JulnesG.PangD.Takemoto-ChockN.SpeidelG. E.TharpR. G. (1987). The process of training in processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 387–396.
27.
JulnesG.RogD. J. (2007). Pragmatic support for policies on methodology. In JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation(New Directions for Evaluation, no. 113, pp. 129–147). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
JulnesG.RogD. J. (2015). Actionable evidence in context. In DonaldsonS. I.ChristieC. A.MarkM. M. (Eds.), Credible and actionable evidence: The foundation for rigorous and influential evaluations (2nd ed.), pp. 221–258. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1969). Organisations and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
30.
MarkM.HenryG. T.JulnesG. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PattonM. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
PutnamH. (1990). Realism with a human face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
RoethlisbergerF. J.DicksonW. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
35.
ScottW. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
ShadishW. R. (2011). Randomized controlled studies and alternative designs in outcome studies challenges and opportunities. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 636–643.
37.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
StakeR. E.MigotskyC.DavisR.CisnerosE. J.DepaulG.DunbarC.…ChavesI. (1997). The evolving syntheses of program value. Evaluation Practice, 18, 89–109.
39.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Cognition and cost-benefit analysis. In AdlerM. D.PosnerE. A. (Eds.), Cost-benefit analysis: Legal economic, and philosophical perspectives (pp. 223–267). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
40.
TharpR. G. (2012). Delta theory and psychosocial systems: The practice of influence and change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
WeissC. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
43.
WestC. H. (1995). Theory, pragmatism, and politics. In HollingerR.DepewD. (Eds.), Pragmatism: From progressivism to postmodernism (pp. 314–325). Westport, CT: Praeger.
44.
WholeyJ. S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.