This article examines the methodological strengths and weaknesses of contribution analysis. The authors contend that a salient characteristic of contribution analysis is its accounting for influencing factors and alternative explanations. We argue that contribution analysis in its current form needs further methodological and practical elaboration in this respect. Therefore, this article pays particular attention to how the methodology can identify and determine the extent of influencing factors and alternative explanations. The authors propose a corresponding framework – the Relevant Explanation Finder – which can help evaluators account for these elements and thereby create more credible contribution stories.
AstburyBLeeuwF (2010) Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 363–81.
2.
CoffmanJ (2010) Broadening the perspective on scale. Evaluation ExchangeXV(1): 2–3.
3.
DurlakJDuPreE (2008) Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology41: 327–50.
4.
DusenburyLBranniganRFalcoMHansenW (2003) A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research18(2): 237–56.
5.
DybdalLNielsenSBLemireS (2010) Contribution analysis applied: reflections on scope and methodology. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation25(2): 29–57.
6.
EwaltJAGJenningsET (2004) Administration, governance, and policy tools in welfare administration. Public Administration Review64: 449–62.
7.
FixsenDNaoomSLBlaséKAFriedmanRMWallaceF (2005) Implementation Research. A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
8.
GroverV (1993) An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences24(3): 603–40.
9.
HedströmPSwedbergR (1996) Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica39: 281–308.
10.
HedströmPSwedbergR (eds) (1998) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HillCJ (2006) Casework job design and client outcomes in welfare-to-work offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16: 263–88.
12.
KeiserLRSossJ (1998) With good cause: bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science42: 1133–56.
13.
LangbeinLI (2000) Ownership, empowerment, and productivity: some empirical evidence on the causes and consequences of employee discretion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management19: 427–49.
14.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucrats: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15.
MayneJ (1999) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Discussion paper. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/FA3-31-1999E.pdf.
16.
MayneJ (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation16(1): 1–24.
MayneJ (2009) Improving HRSDC evaluations of G&C Program: using theory-based approaches. Unpublished manuscript.
19.
MayneJ (2011) Addressing cause and effect in simple and complex settings through contribution analysis. In: SchwartzRForssKMarraM (eds) Evaluating the Complex. Attribution, Contribution and Beyond. New York: Transaction Publishers.
20.
MayntzR (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences34: 237–59.
21.
PawsonR (2002) Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’. Evaluation8(3): 340–58.
RiccucciNMMeyersMKLurieIHanJS (2004) The implementation of welfare reform policy: the role of public managers in front-line practices. Public Administrative Review64: 438–48.
25.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
26.
TrochimWMK (1985) Pattern matching, validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review9(5): 575–604.
27.
Van EveraS (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
WeissCH (1997) Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation76: 41–55.
29.
WinterS (2003) Political control, street-level bureaucrats and information asymmetry in regulatory and social policies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Policy Analysis and Management held in Washington, DC, 6–8 November. Copenhagen, Denmark: The Danish National Centre for Social Research.
30.
WinterS (2006) Implementation. In: PetersBGPierreJ (eds) Handbook of Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 151–66.
31.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
