Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, L., K. Newell and P. Kilcoyne (1999) ‘Selling Blood: Characteristics and Motivations of Student Plasma Donors’ , Sociological Spectrum 19(2): 137-162 .

Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., R. Rist and E. Vedung (1998) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation, p. 280. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction .

Connell, J., A. Kubish, L. Schorr and C. Weiss (1995) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .

Lewin, K. (1952) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, p. 346. London: Tavistock .

Lovell, T. (2001) Megan’s Law: Does it Protect Children? A Review of Evidence on the Impact of Community Notification as Legislated for through Megan’s Law in the United States: Recommendations for Policy Makers in the United Kingdom, p. 42. London: NSPCC .

Mitchell, K. (1997) ‘Encouraging Young Women to Exercise: Can Teenage Magazines Play a Role?’ , Health Education Journal 56(2): 264-273 .

Pawson, R. (2002a) ‘Evidence-based Policy: In Search of a Method’ , Evaluation 8(2): 157-181 .

Pawson, R. (2002b) ‘Evidence-based Policy: The Promise of Realist Synthesis’ , Evaluation 8(3): 340-358 .

Pawson, R. (2002c) Does Megan’s Law Work? A Theory-driven Systematic Review, p. 59. London: ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice Working Paper 8. Available via: http://www.evidencenetwork.org (accessed 2 June 2003).

10.

Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation, p. 235. London: Sage .

11.

Petrosino, A. and C. Petrosino (1999) ‘The Public Safety Potential of Megan’s Law in Massachusetts: An Assessment from a Sample of Criminal Sexual Psychopaths’ , Crime and Delinquency 45(1): 140-158 .

12.

Salamon, L. (1981) ‘Rethinking Public Management: Third-party Government and the Changing Forms of Government Action’ , Public Policy 29(3): 255-275 .

13.

Schram, D. and C. Milloy (1995) Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism, 30pp. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy . Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/pdf/chrrec.pdf (accessed 2 June 2003).

14.

Tilley, N. (1996) ‘Demonstration, Exemplification, Duplication and Replication in Evaluation Research’ , Evaluation 2(1): 35-50 .

15.

Titmuss, R. (1970) The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, p. 339. London: Allen and Unwin .

16.

Warriner, K., J. Goyder, H. Gjertsen, P. Hohner and K. McSpurren (1996) ‘Charities, No; Lotteries, No; Cash, Yes: Main Effects and Interactions in a Canadian Incentives Experiment’ , Public Opinion Quarterly 60(4): 542-562 .

17.

Weiss, C. (1995) ‘Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation in Complex Community Initiatives for Children and Families’, in J. Connell, A. Kubish, L. Schorr and C. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .

18.

Weiss, C. and M. Bucuvalas (1980) Social Science Research and Decision-making, p. 332. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

19.

Zelizer, V. (1994) The Social Meaning of Money, p. 286. New York: Basic Books .

20.

Zevitz, R. and M. Farkas (2000) ‘The Impact of Sex-offender Community Notification on Probation/Parole in Wisconsin’ , International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1): 8-21 .