The rise of evidence-based policy-making has created pressures on the evaluation activities of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). In tandem with the demands from outside, NGOs themselves have improved their evaluation activities due to their own desire to learn. This article was motivated by the reflections of Finnish development NGOs on their need to elaborate new approaches. The NGOs have particularly searched for alternatives to the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), as they have found its measurability demands not to be applicable to their work. This article considers the possibilities of realistic evaluation providing a potential alternative approach. The attempt of realistic evaluation to integrate the concept of mechanism into the identification of programme theory increases the depth of the analysis. In addition, we suggest that the value dimension in NGOs’ work should be taken into account as a part of realistic evaluation.
Alkin MC and Christie C. ( 2004) An evaluation tree. In: Alkin MC (ed.) Evaluation Roots. Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 12-66.
2.
Bakewell O. and Garbutt A. ( 2005) The use and abuse of the logical framework approach . a review of international development NGOs experiences . INTRAC. URL: http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-the-Logical-Framework-Approach.pdf
3.
Befani B., Ledermann S. and Sager F. ( 2007) Realistic evaluation and QCA: conceptual parallels and empirical application. Evaluation13 (2): 171-192.
4.
Chambers R., Karlan D., Ravallion M. and Rogers P. ( 2009) Designing impact evaluations: different perspectives . International initiative for impact evaluation, Working Paper 4.
5.
Chelimsky E. ( 1997) The coming transformations in evaluation. In Chelimsky E and Shadish WR (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century. A Handbook , 1-26. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
Chen H.-T (2005) Practical Programme Evaluation. Assessing and Improving Planning, Implementation and Effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
Cracknell BE ( 2000) Evaluating Development Aid. Issues, Problems and Solutions . London: SAGE.
8.
Davies R. ( 2004) Scale, complexity and the representation of the theories of change. Evaluation10: 101-21.
9.
Davies R. ( 2005) Scale, complexity and the representation of the theories of change. Part II. Evaluation11(2): 133-49.
10.
Elder-Vass D. ( 2010) Realistic critique without ethical naturalism and moral realism. Journal of Critical Realism9(1): 33-58.
11.
Feinstein O. and Beck T. ( 2006) Evaluation of development interventions and humanitarian action. In: Shaw IF, Greene JC and Mark MM (eds) Handbook of Evaluation. Policies, Programs and Practices. London: SAGE, 536-58.
12.
Hoksbergen R. ( 1986) Approaches to evaluation of development interventions: the importance of world and life views. World Development14(2): 283-300.
13.
Holma K. ( 2004) Plurealism and education: Israel Scheffler’s synthesis and its presumable educational implications. Educational Theory54(4): 419-30.
14.
Holma K. (in press) The epistemological conditions of moral education. the notions of rationality and objectivity revisited. Educational Theory. (Accepted for publication September 2010).
15.
Horton K. ( 2010) The epistemic problem: potential solutions. In Horton K and Roche C (eds) Ethical Questions and International NGOs. An Exchange between Philosophers and NGOs. Dordrecth: Springer, 87-118.
16.
Horton K and Roche C (eds) (2010) Ethical Questions and International NGOs. An Exchange between Philosophers and NGOs. Springer : Dortdrecht.
17.
Kelsall T. ( 2001) Donors, NGOs & the State. Governance & ‘civil society’ in Tanzania. In: Barrow O and Jennings M (eds) The Charitable Impulse: NGOs & Development in East and North-East Africa . Oxford: James Currey & Kumarian Press, 133-48.
18.
Koenig G.(2009) Realistic evaluation and case studies: stretching the potential . Evaluation15(1): 9-30.
19.
Kontinen T. ( 2007) Learning Challenges of NGOs in Development. Co-operation of Finnish NGOs in Morogoro, Tanzania. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
20.
Kontinen T. ( 2009) Paradigmakeskustelut ja käytännön jännitteet. Kehitysyhteistyötä tekevien kansalaisjärjestöjen arviointiosaamisen haasteista [Paradigm debates and practical tensions. Challenges in evaluation competencies of development NGOs]. Hallinnon Tutkimus28(5): 94-108.
21.
Long N. ( 2001) Development Sociology. Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge.
22.
McCoy S., Kangwende R and Padian N (2010) Behavior change interventions to prevent HIV infection among women living in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. AIDS and Behaviour14(3): 469-82.
23.
Niiniluoto I. ( 1999) Critical Scientific Realism. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
24.
OECD/DAC ( 2010) Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. URL (consulted 15 October 2010): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf
25.
Olivier de Sardan J-P. ( 2005) Anthropology and Development. Understanding Contemporary Social Change. London: Zed Books .
26.
Oswald K. and Taylor P.(2010) A learning approach to monitoring and evaluation. IDS Bulletin41(6): 114-20.
27.
Pawson R. ( 2002) Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’ . Evaluation8(3): 340-58.
28.
Pawson R. ( 2006) Evidence-based Policy. A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE.
29.
Pawson R. and Tilley N. ( 1997) Realistic Evaluation. London : SAGE.
30.
Putnam H. ( 2002) The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Putnam RA ( 2009) Democracy and value inquiry. In: Shook JR and Margolis J (eds) A Companion to Pragmatism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 278-89.
32.
Rescher N. ( 1990) How wide is the gap between facts and values? Philosophy and Phenomenologial Research50: 297-319.
33.
Riddell RC ( 2007) Does Foreign Aid Really Work?Oxford : Oxford University Press.
34.
Sayer A. ( 2000) Realism and Social Science. London : SAGE.
35.
Scriven M. ( 1981) Evaluation Thesaurus. Inverness, CA : Edgepress.
36.
Stame N.(2010) What doesn’t work? Three failures, many answers. Evaluation16(4): 371-87.
37.
Torres RT and Preskill H. ( 2001) Evaluation and organizational learning: past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation22: 387-95.
38.
Trigg R. ( 2001) Understanding Social Science, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers .
39.
Tvedt T. ( 1998) Angels of Mercy or Development Diplomats. NGOs and Foreign Aid. Trenton: Africa World Press .
40.
White H. ( 2005) Comments on contributions regarding the impact of the Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Project. Health Policy and Planning20(6): 408-11.
41.
White H.(2009) Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practices. Journal of Development Effectiveness1(3): 271-84.
42.
White H.(2010) A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation. Evaluation16(2): 153-64.
43.
White H. and Bamberger M. ( 2008) Introduction: impact evaluation in official development agencies. IDS Bulletin39(1): 1-11.
44.
Van der Riet M. ( 2008) Activity theory and reconceptualising HIV/AIDS interventions . Paper presented in ISCAR-conference , San Diego, 8-13 September.
