“Integrative evaluation” is an approach with two main phases: identification of plausible rival hypotheses and integration of rival hypotheses. The first phase may correspond to traditional adversary evaluation, whereas the second phase, that is not included in adversary evaluation, requires integrative thinking which can be applied when they are compatible and complementary. Integrative evaluation may facilitate “evaluative thinking” and contribute to deliberative or integrative democracy.
BarkerM. J. (2019). Eliminative pluralism and integrative alternatives: The case of SPECIES. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(3), 657–681
2.
BhaskarR. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. New York: Routledge.
3.
DavidsonE. J. (2014). Evaluative reasoning. Florence: UNICEF.
4.
EllermanD. P. (2005). Helping people help themselves. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
5.
ElsterJ. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
FeinsteinO. (2019a) Checklist for evaluation recommendations. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, West Michigan University. https://wmich.edu/evaluation/checklists
8.
FeinsteinO. (2019b). The entanglement of facts and values: An example from an agricultural project in Honduras. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 19(4), 199–203.
9.
FloridaR. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
10.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
HirschmanA. O. (1995). A propensity to self-subversion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14.
HvidstenA. (2018). Arguing with the enemy: A dialectical approach to justifying political liberalism. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(8), 822–842.
15.
IvancevichJ. M.KonopaskeR.MattesonM. T. (2011). Organizational behavior and management (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
16.
LeeuwF. L.DonaldsonS. I. (2015). Theory in evaluation: Reducing confusion and encouraging debate. Evaluation, 21(4), 467–480.
17.
ManinB. (2017). Political deliberation & the adversarial principle. Daedalus, 146, 39–50.
18.
ManinB. (2011/2012). Comment promouvoir la délibération démocratique?Raisons Politiques, 42, 83–113.
19.
MartinR. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
MazzucatoM. (2018). The value of everything. London: Allan Lane.
21.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22.
NisbettR. E. (2015). Mindware. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
23.
Ortega y GassetJ. (1938). El tema de nuestro tiempo. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
24.
PattonM. Q. (2018). A historical perspective on the evolution of evaluative thinking. In VoA. T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), Evaluative thinking. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 158, pp. 11–28). Hanover, PA.
25.
PicciottoR. (2019). Is adversary evaluation worth a second look?American Journal of Evaluation, 40, 92–103.
ProninE.LinD. Y.RossL. (2002). The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.
28.
SchwandtT. A. (2018). Evaluative thinking as a collaborative social practice: The case of boundary judgment making. In VoA. T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), Evaluative thinking. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 158, pp. 125–137). Hanover, PA.
29.
ScrivenM. (1974). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. In PophamW. J. (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications (pp. 34–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
ScrivenM. (1994, Winter). The final synthesis. In Evaluation practice.
31.
SharkeyJ. (1970). Ortega, Einstein and perspectivism. Romance Notes, 12(1, Autumn), 21–25.
VoA. T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.). (2018) Evaluative thinking. New Directions for Evaluation, No 158.
34.
WanP. Y. (2013). Dialectics, complexity, and the systemic approach: Toward a critical reconciliation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(4), 411–452.
35.
WorthenB. R.SandersJ. R.FitzpatrickJ. L. (1997). Program evaluation. New York: Longman.
36.
WrightG. (2019). Integrative democracy: Mary Parker Follett’s integration and deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 15(1), 4.
