While evaluation practice is still disposed towards rational quantitative methods, evaluation research has increasingly utilized qualitative dialogical methods. In this article, the increasing gap between practice and research is examined by analysing how evaluation research has evolved from within three perspectives: a policy programme perspective, a welfare economics perspective and a planning theory perspective. The article also discusses the implications of the emerging gap between evaluation research and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Åberg, J.-O. (1997) `Det rationell och det legitima. En studie av utvärderingars teori och praktik [The Rational and the Legitimate: A Study of the Theory and Practice of Evaluations', PhD Thesis. Göteborg: Department of Sociology, Göteborg University.
2.
Ahlenius, I.-B. and G. Jonsson (1995) `A New Strategy for Performance Audits of Social Security Systems' , International Journal of Accounting4(1): 7-9 .
3.
Bobrow, D. B. and J. S. Dryzek (1987) Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press .
4.
Boyd, R. (1991) `Confirmation, Semantics, and the Interpretation of Scientific Theories', in R. Boyd, P. Gasper and J. D. Trout (eds) The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
5.
Cook, T. P. (1985) `Postpositivist Critical Multiplism', in R. L. Shortland and M. M. Mark (eds) Social Science and Social Policy, pp. 129-146. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
6.
Faludi, A. (1987) A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press .
7.
Fischer, F. (1993) `Restructuring Policy Analysis: A Postpositivist Perspective' , Policy Sciences25(4): 333-339 .
8.
Fischer, F. (1995) Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers .
9.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
10.
Forss, K. and J. Carlsson (1997) `The Quest for Quality - Or Can Evaluation Findings Be Trusted?' , Evaluation3(4): 481-501 .
11.
Guba, E. G. (1990) The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
12.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
13.
Hanberger, A. (2001) `What is the Policy Problem? Methodological Challenges in Policy Evaluation' , Evaluation7(1): 45-62 .
14.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning. London: Macmillan .
15.
Henkel, M. (1991) Government, Evaluation and Change. London: Jessica Kingsley .
16.
Khakee, A. (1998) `Evaluation and Planning: Inseparable Concepts' , Town Planning Review69(4): 359-374 .
17.
Khakee, A. (2002) `Assessing Institutional Capital Building in a Local Agenda 21 Process in Göteborg' , Planning Theory and Practice3(1): 53-68 .
18.
Khakee, A., A. Barbanente and D. Borri (2000) `Expert and Experiential Knowledge in Planning' , Journal of the Operational Research Society51(7): 776-788 .
19.
Lichfield, N. (1996) Community Impact Evaluation. London: UCL Press .
20.
Lichfield, N., P. Kettle and M. Whitbread (1975) Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press .
21.
Lichfield, N., A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Khakee and A. Prat, eds (1998) Evaluation in Planning. Facing the Challenge of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
22.
Madaus, G. F., M. Scriven and D. L. Stufflebeam, eds (1983) Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. The Hague: Kluwer-Nijhoff .
23.
Nordisk Administrativ Tidskrift [Nordic Journal of Public Administration] (2000) Special Issue on Evaluation in Nordic Countries 81(2): 107-161 .
24.
Nyberg, E. (2000) `Möjigheter och begränsningar för arbetsmarknadsutbildning vid universitet och högskolor' [Possibilities and Limitations for Labour Market Education in Universities and University Colleges], in En effektivare arbetsmarknadsutbildning [An Effective Labour Market Education], Public Commission Report Appendix 2. Stockholm: Ministry of Industry.
25.
Palumbo, D. J. and D. Nachmias (1983) `The Pre-conditions for Successful Evaluation: Is There an Ideal Type?' , Policy Sciences16(1): 67-79 .
26.
Peters, B. G. (1986) Public Policy in America: Process and Performance. London: Macmillan .
27.
Pollitt, C., X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa and M. Waerness (1999) Performance or Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
28.
Scriven, M. (1973) `Goal-free Evaluation', in E. R. House (ed.) School Evaluation: The Politics and Process, pp. 319-328. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan .
29.
Simon, H. A. (1976) Administrative Behaviour, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press .
30.
Söderbaum, P. (1998) `Economics and Ecological Sustainability. An Actor-network Approach to Evaluation', in N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Khakee and A. Prat (eds) Evaluation in Planning: Facing the Challenge of Complexity, pp. 51-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
31.
Torgerson, D. (1986) `Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis' , Policy Sciences19(1): 33-59 .
32.
Vedung, E. (1991) Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning [Evaluation in Government and Administration]. Lund: Studentlitteratur .
33.
Voogd, H. (1983) Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. London: Pion .
34.
Weiss, C. H. (1972) Evaluation Research Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall .
