BambergerM. (2004). Shoestring evaluation: Designing impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 5–37. doi:10.1016/j.ameval.2003.11.001
2.
ChenH. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
EspelandW. N. (2001). Value-matters. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 1839–1845.
5.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343. doi:10.2307/223484
6.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology, 49, 401–436.
7.
HansenH.KlejnstrupN. R.AndersenO. W. (2013). A comparison of model-based and design-based impact evaluations of interventions in developing countries. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 320–338. doi:10.1177/1098214013476915
8.
HowellE. M.YemaneA. (2016). An assessment of evaluation designs. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 219–236. doi:10.1177/1098214006287557
Paz-YbarnegarayR.DouthwaiteB. (2017). Outcome evidencingAmerican Journal of Evaluation38275–293doi:10.1177/1098214016676573
14.
ReichardtC. S. (2011). Evaluating methods for estimating program effects. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 246–272.
15.
RuffK. (2013). The role of intermediaries in social accounting: Insights from effective transparency systems. In MookL. (Ed.), Accounting for social value. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
TimmermansS.EpsteinS. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69–89. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629
18.
WeissC. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluations make greater headway?Evaluation Review, 21, 501–524. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100405
