Contribution analysis and theory-based evaluation are linked. This article discusses the contributions of several (recent) developments to further deepen the links between theory-based evaluation and contribution analysis. This will be done by describing how three well-known (and almost classical) problematic situations for impact evaluations can be addressed through the application of insights and tools from theory-based evaluation.
ArgyrisCSchönDA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
AstburyBLeeuwFL (2010) Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory-building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 363–81.
3.
BarnoskiR (2004) Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
4.
CarrollCPattersonMWoodSBoothARickJBalainS (2007) A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science2(1): 40.
5.
ChenHTRossiPH (1980) The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: a model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces59: 106–22.
6.
ColemanJ (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
7.
CorynCNoakesLAWestineCDSchröterDC (2010) A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation32(1): 1–28.
8.
DolanPHallsworthMHalpernDKingDVlaevI (2010) MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. London: Cabinet Office and Institute for Government.
9.
DonaldsonSI (2007) Program Theory-Driven Evaluation Science. New York: Lawrence.
10.
DurlakJADuPréE (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.
11.
EdenCSpenderJ-C (eds) (1998) Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Theory, Methods and Research. London: SAGE
12.
ElsterJ (1989) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ElsterJ (2007) Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
FogelR (1964) Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
FoyROvretveitJShekellePGPronovostPJTaylorSLDySHempelSMcDonaldKMRubensteinLVWachterRM (2011) The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices. BMJ Quality & Safety20(5): 453–9.
17.
FunnellSRogersP (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
GreenhalghTRobertGMacFarlaneFBatePKyriakidouO (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly82(4): 581–629.
19.
HansenMBVedungE (2010) Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 295–313.
20.
HarmelinkMNilssonLHarmsenR (2008) Theory-based policy evaluation of 20 energy efficiency instruments. Energy Efficiency1: 131–48.
21.
HedströmP (2005) Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HedströmPSwedbergR (1998) Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KeizerKLindenbergSStegL (2008) The spreading of disorder. Science322: 1681–5.
25.
KruisbergenEW (2007) Voorlichting: doen of laten? Theorie van afschrikwekkende voorlichtingscampagnes toegepast op de casus van bolletjesslikkers. Beleidswetenschap19(3): 38–51.
26.
LeeuwFL (1991) Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation. Knowledge and Policy4: 73–92.
27.
LeeuwFL (2003) Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation24(1): 5–20.
28.
LeeuwFL (in press) Report on Theory-Based Evaluation (Tbe), Prepared for the Evalsed Handbook on Impact Evaluation. Brussels: DG Regional Policy.
29.
LeeuwFLLeeuwB (2012) Cyber society and digital policies: challenges to evaluation?Evaluation18(1): 111–27.
30.
LeeuwFLVaessenJ (2009) Impact Evaluation and Development. Washington, DC: NONIE & World Bank.
31.
LipseyMW (2009) The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders4: 124–47.
32.
LudwigJKlingJRMullainathanS (2011) Mechanism experiments and policy evaluations. Journal of Economic Perspectives25(3): 17–38.
33.
McLaughlinJAJordanGB (2004) Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning22: 65–72.
34.
MannheimK (1967 [1935]) Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction: Studies in Modern Social Structure. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
35.
MasonIMitroffI (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: Wiley.
36.
MayneJ (2011) Contribution analysis: addressing cause and effect. In: SchwartzRForssKMarraM (eds) Evaluating the Complex. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 53–96.
37.
NasCVan Ooyen-HoubenMWiemanJ (2011) Interventies in uitvoering: wat er mis kan gaan bij de uitvoering van justitiële (gedrags)interventies en hoe dat komt. Memorandum 2011-12 [Intervention in Progress: What Can Go Wrong in the Execution of Judicial (Behavioral) Interventions and Why that Is. Memorandum 2011-12]. The Hague: WODC.
38.
PawsonR (2002a) Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’. Evaluation8(3): 340–58.
39.
PawsonR (2002b) Evidence and policy and naming and shaming. Policy Studies23(3): 211–30.
40.
PawsonR (2006) Evidence Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE.
PawsonRSridharanS (2010) Theory-driven evaluation of public health programmes. In: KilloranAKellyM (eds) Evidence-Based Public Health Effectiveness and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–62.
43.
PawsonRWongGOwenL (2011) Evidence-based policy known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: the predicament of of evidence-based policy. American Journal of Evaluation32(4): 518–46.
44.
PopperKR (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
45.
RozendalPMoorsHLeeuwF (1985) Het bevolkingsvraagstuk in de jaren 80; opvattingen over overheidsbeleid [Population Issues in the 1980’s: Attitudes towards Policy]. The Hague: NIDI.
46.
SuchmanE (1967) Evaluative Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
TetlockPEBelkinA (1996) Counterfactual thought experiments in global politics: logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. In: TetlockPBelkinA (eds) Counterfactual Reasoning, Counterfactual Thought Experiments in Global Politics: Logical, Methodological and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–38.
48.
ThompsonVDAppelbaumM (1974) Population Policy Acceptance: Psychological Determinants. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center Monograph Series.
49.
US GAO (1995) Prospective Evaluations Methods: The Prospective Evaluation Synthesis. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
Van den BraakS (2010) Sensemaking software. Unpublished PhD thesis, Utrecht University.
52.
Van den BraakSWVan OostendorpHPrakkenHVreeswijkGAW (2006) A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners? In: GrassoFKibbleRReedCR (eds) Workshop Notes of the ECAI-2006 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VI). Riva del Garda, Italy, 67–75.
53.
VerheijB (2005) Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
54.
WeickKEBougonMG (1986) Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to success and failure. In: SimsHPGioiaDA (eds) The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational and Social Cognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
WeissCH (1995) Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: ConnellJKubischASchorrLBWeissCH (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 1, Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. New York: Aspen Institute, 65–92.
56.
WeissCH (1997) Theory-based evaluation: Past, present and future. New Directions for Evaluation76: 41–55.
57.
WholeyJ (1977) Evaluability assessment. In: RutmanL (ed.) Evaluation Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
58.
ZumbachJ (2009) The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior25(4): 811–17.
