This article reports on a study that explored whether evidence can be found of a shared evaluation tradition among evaluation researchers and practitioners working in institutions in the Nordic countries. The study focused on articles in peer-reviewed, international, designated evaluation journals in the period 2000–12; it found little evidence from the analysis of these sources to support this claim. Meanwhile, the study found a clear preference of Nordic evaluators for publishing in European journals, with Sweden being the dominant source country in terms of number of publications, selection of journals in which they were published, and institutions and authors publishing the most.
AgasistiTCatalanoGLandoniPVergantiR (2012) Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation21(1): 2–14.
2.
AksnesDWTaxtRE (2004) Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation13(1): 33–41.
3.
AlbækE (1993) Evalueringsforskning i Norden [Evaluation research in the Nordics]. Politica25(1): 6–25.
4.
AlexandersonKBeijerEBengtssonSHyvänenUKarlssonP (2009) Producing and consuming knowledge in social work practice: research and development activities in a Swedish context. Evidence and Policy5(2): 127–39.
5.
Bemelmans-VidecML (2002) Evaluation in the Netherlands 1990-2000: consolidation and expansion. In: FuruboJERistRCSandahlR (eds), International Atlas of Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1–23.
6.
CanagarajahAS (2002) A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
7.
ChristieCNesbitt FleischerD (2010) Insight into evaluation practice: a content analysis of designs and methods used in evaluation studies published in North American evaluation-focused journals. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 326–46.
8.
DabelsteinNKliestT (2012) Preparing, governing, and managing the Paris Declaration evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2012 Special issue: 37–67.
9.
DabelsteinNPattonMQ (2012a) The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness: history and significance. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2012 Special issue: 19–36.
10.
DabelsteinNPattonMQ (2012b) Lessons learned and the contributions of the Paris Declaration evaluation to evaluation theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2012 Special issue: 173–200.
DelanderLHammarstedtMMånssonJNybergE (2005) Integration of immigrants: the role of language proficiency and experience. Evaluation29(1): 24–41.
13.
Díaz-PuenteJMCazorlaADorregoA (2007) Crossing national, continental, and linguistic boundaries: toward a worldwide evaluation research community in journals of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation28(4): 399–415.
14.
DybdalLNielsenSBLemireS (2010) Contribution analysis applied: reflections on scope and methodology. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation25(2): 29–57.
FlowerdewJ (1999a) Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing8(3): 243–64.
17.
FlowerdewJ (1999b) Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing8(2): 123–45.
18.
ForsetlundLTalsethKOBradleyPNordheimLBjørndalA (2003) Many a slip between cup and lip process evaluation of a program to promote and support evidence-based public health practice. Evaluation Review27(2): 179–209.
19.
ForssK (2012) The First Nordic Evaluation Conference: Aalborg, Denmark, 13–15 June 2012. Evaluation18(4): 506–7.
20.
ForssKKruseSETautSTendenE (2006) Chasing a ghost? An essay on participatory evaluation and capacity development. Evaluation12(1): 128–44.
21.
ForssKRebienCC (2002) Process use of evaluations types of use that precede lessons learned and feedback. Evaluation8(1): 29–45.
22.
FuruboJESandahlR (2002) A diffusion perspective on global developments in evaluation. In: FuruboJERistRCSandahlR (eds), International Atlas of Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1–23.
23.
HailikariTNevgiALindblom-YlänneS (2007) Exploring alternative ways of assessing prior knowledge, its components and their relation to student achievement: a mathematics based case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation33(3–4): 320–37.
24.
HanbergerA (2001a) Policy and program evaluation, civil society, and democracy. American Journal of Evaluation22(2): 211–28.
25.
HanbergerA (2001b) What is the policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy evaluation. Evaluation7(1): 45–62.
26.
HanbergerASchildI (2004) Strategies to evaluate a university-industry knowledge-exchange programme. Evaluation10(4): 475–92.
27.
HanbergerA (2006) Evaluation of and for democracy. Evaluation12(1): 17–37.
28.
HanbergerA (2010) Multicultural awareness in evaluation: dilemmas and challenges. Evaluation16(2): 177–91.
29.
HanbergerA (2011) The real functions of evaluation and response systems. Evaluation17(4): 327–49.
30.
HansenHF (2004) Choosing evaluation models: a discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation11(4): 447–62.
31.
HansenHFRieperO (2009) The evidence movement: the development and consequences of methodologies in review practices. Evaluation15(2): 141–63.
32.
HansenMBVedungE (2010) Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 295–313.
33.
HanssonF (2005) Organizational use of evaluations governance and control in research evaluation. Evaluation12(2): 159–78.
34.
HaugeTE (2006) Portfolios and ICT as means of professional learning in teacher education. studies in educational. Evaluation32(1): 23–36.
35.
HebergerAEChristieCAAlkinMA (2010) A bibliometric analysis of the academic influences of and on evaluation theorists’ published works. American Journal of Evaluation31(1): 24–44.
36.
HeldenGJJohnsonÅVakkuriJ (2012) The life-cycle approach to performance management: implications for public management and evaluation. Evaluation18(2): 159–75.
37.
HellströmTJacobM (2003) Knowledge without goals? Evaluation of knowledge management programmes. Evaluation9(1): 55–72.
38.
HolmG (2006) Evaluation in the Nordic countries. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation3(4): 141–54.
39.
HróbjartssonANorupM (2003) The use of placebo interventions in medical practice: a national questionnaire survey of Danish clinicians. Evaluation and the Health Professions26(2): 153–65.
40.
KarlssonO (2001) Critical dialogue: its value and meaning. Evaluation7(2): 211–27.
KhakeeA (2003) The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice. Evaluation9(3): 340–52.
43.
LangfeldtL (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation15(1): 31–41.
44.
LaunsøLRieperORieperJ (2007) Evaluative feedback as a contribution to learning between groups of professionals. Evaluation13(3): 306–22.
45.
LeeuwFFuruboJE (2008) Evaluation systems: what are they and why study them?Evaluation14(2): 157–70.
46.
LekholmAKCliffordsonC (2008) Discrepancies between school grades and test scores at individual and school level: effects of gender and family background. Educational Research and Evaluation14(2): 181–99.
47.
LekholmAKCliffordsonC (2009) Effects of student characteristics on grades in compulsory school. Educational Research and Evaluation15(1): 1–23.
48.
LemireSTNielsenSBDybdalL (2012) Making contribution analysis work: a practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations. Evaluation18(3): 294–309.
49.
LööfHHeshmatiA (2003) The link between firm-level innovation and aggregate productivity growth: a cross-country examination. Research Evaluation12(2): 131–47.
50.
LyrénP (2009) Reporting subscores from college admission tests. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation14(4): 1–10.
51.
McDonaldSLefebvreCAntesGGalandiDGøtzschePHammarquistCHaughMJensenKLKleijnenJLoepMPistottiVRütherA (2002) The contribution of handsearching European general health care journals to the Cochrane controlled trials register. Evaluation and the Health Professions25(1): 65–75.
52.
MickwitzP (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments context and key concepts. Evaluation9(4): 415–36.
53.
NäsströmGNyströmP (2008) A comparison of two different methods for setting performance standards for a test with constructed-response items. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation13(9): 1–12.
54.
NicolaisenJ (2002) The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation11(3): 129–40.
55.
NielsenSBEjlerN (2008) Improving performance? Exploring the complementarities between evaluation and performance management. Evaluation14(2): 171–92.
56.
NielsenSBPedersenCSLemireSTDrachmannKA (2012) Danske bidrag til den fagfællebedømte evalueringsforskning. EvalueringsNyt28: 2–11.
57.
NielsenSBLemireSTSkovM (2011) Measuring evaluation capacity: results and implication of a Danish study. American Journal of Evaluation32(3): 323–44.
Norwegian Database for Statistics on Higher Education (2012) Authority list of journals and publishing houses 2011. URL: http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/kanaler/
60.
OlsenOELindøeP (2004) Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles. Evaluation and Program Planning27(4): 371–80.
61.
OlssonTM (2007) Reconstructing evidence-based practice: an investigation of three conceptualisations of EBP. Evidence & Policy3(2): 271–85.
62.
PalmT (2008) Performance assessment and authentic assessment: a conceptual analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation13(4): 1–11.
63.
ParpalaALindblom-YlänneS (2007) University teachers’ conceptions of good teaching in the units of high-quality education. Studies in Educational Evaluation33(3–4): 355–70.
64.
PedersenLHRieperO (2008) Is realist evaluation a realistic approach for complex reforms?Evaluation14(3): 271–93.
65.
RandolphJJEdmondsonRS (2005) Using the Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) to present the magnitude of effect sizes to the evaluation audience. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation10(4): 1–7.
66.
RieperO (2010) Exploring Popper’s relevance for the evaluation community. Evaluation10(1): 92–100.
67.
SchwandtT (1998) Editor’s notes. New Directions for Evaluation77: 1–4.
68.
SchwandtTDahler-LarsenP (2005) When evaluation meets the ‘rough ground’ in communities. Evaluation12(4): 496–505.
69.
ShortRBonicheAKimYLiPL (2001) Cultural globalization, global English, and geography journals. The Professional Geographer53(1): 1–11.
70.
StameN (2012) A European evaluation theory tree. In: AlkinMC (ed.), Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists Views and Influences, 2nd edn.London: SAGE.
71.
SternE (2006) Contextual challenges for evaluation practice. In: ShawIGreeneJMarkM (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. London: SAGE, 292–314.
72.
StevensonJThomasD (2006) Intellectual contexts. In: ShawIGreeneJMarkM (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. London: SAGE, 225–42.
UusikuläPValovirtaV (2007) Three spheres of performance governance spanning the boundaries from single-organization focus towards a partnership network. Evaluation13(4): 399–419.
75.
VedungE (2010) Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation16(3): 263–77.
76.
VirtanenPUusikyläP (2004) Exploring the missing links between cause and effect: a conceptual framework for understanding micro–macro conversions in programme evaluation. Evaluation10(1): 77–91.
77.
WesterAHenrikssonW (2000) The interaction between item format and gender differences in mathematics performance based on timss data. Studies in Educational Evaluation26: 79–90.
78.
WoodBDabelsteinN (2012) Dissemination and early use of the Paris Declaration evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2012 Special issue: 129–46.
79.
YangYGustafssonJ (2004) Measuring socioeconomic status at individual and collective levels. Educational Research and Evaluation10(3): 259–88.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
