Standing back and looking forward: Editors’ reflections on the 20th Anniversary of Evaluation

Arkesteijn M van Mierlo B Leeuwis C (2015) The need for reflexive evaluation approaches in development cooperation. Evaluation 21(1): 99–115.

Balthasar A (2006) The effects of institutional design on the utilization of evaluation evidenced using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Evaluation 12(3): 353–71.

Barnes M Matka E Sullivan H (2003) Evidence, understanding and complexity evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation 9(3): 265–84.

Baur VE Elteren AHGV Nierse CJ Abma TA (2010) Dealing with distrust and power dynamics: Asymmetric relations among stakeholders in responsive evaluation. Evaluation 16(3): 233–48.

Beck U Giddens A Lash S (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Befani B (2013) Between complexity and generalization: Addressing evaluation challenges with QCA. Evaluation 19(3): 269–83.

Blackman T Wistow J Byrne D (2013) Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to understand complex policy problems. Evaluation 19(2): 126–40.

Blamey A Mackenzie M (2007) Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation 13(4): 439–55.

Blamey A MacMillan F Fitzsimons CF . (2013) Using programme theory to strengthen research protocol and intervention design within an RCT of a walking intervention. Evaluation 19(1): 5–23.

Bustelo M (2003) Evaluation of gender mainstreaming ideas from a meta-evaluation study. Evaluation 9(4): 383–403.

Byrne D (2013) Evaluating complex social interventions in a complex world. Evaluation 19(3): 217–28.

Callaghan G (2008) Evaluation and negotiated order developing the application of complexity theory. Evaluation 14(4): 399–411.

Cartwright N Hardie J (2012) Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chaiklin S Lave J (1993) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contandriopoulos D Brousselle A (2012) Evaluation models and evaluation use. Evaluation 18(1): 61–77.

Dahler-Larsen P (2001) From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation 7(3): 331–49.

de Souza DE (2013) Elaborating the Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration (CMOc) in realist evaluation: A critical realist perspective. Evaluation 19(2): 141–54.

Espinosa J (2013) Moving towards gender-sensitive evaluation? Practices and challenges in international-development. Evaluation 19(2): 171–82.

Fitzpatrick T (2012) Evaluating legislation: An alternative approach for evaluating EU internal market and services law. Evaluation 18(4): 477–99.

Forss K Rebien C (2014) Is there a Nordic/Scandinavian evaluation tradition? Evaluation 20(4): 467–70.

Forss K Samset K (1999) Square pegs and round holes: Evaluation, uncertainty and risk management. Evaluation 5(4): 407–21.

Forss K Marra M Schwartz R (eds) (2011) Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution and Beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Georghiou L (1998) Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Evaluation 4(1): 37–51.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gregory A (2000) Problematizing participation: A Critical review of approaches to participation in evaluation theory. Evaluation 6(2): 179–99.

Hertting N Vedung E (2012) Purposes and criteria in network governance evaluation: How far does standard evaluation vocabulary takes us? Evaluation 18(1): 27–46.

Jacob S Speer S Furubo J-E (2015) The institutionalization of evaluation matters: Updating the International Atlas of Evaluation 10 years later. Evaluation 21(1): 6–31.

Kleistra Y Willigen NV (2010) Evaluating diplomacy: A mission impossible? Evaluation 16(2): 119–35.

Kœnig G (2009) Realistic evaluation and case studies: Stretching the potential. Evaluation 15(1): 9–30.

Kosters M Heijden JV der (2015) From mechanism to virtue: Evaluating nudge theory. Evaluation 21(3): 276–91.

Krupnik S (2012) Evaluating the social mechanism of investment subsidies using an abductive approach. Evaluation 18(4): 466–76.

Laperrière H (2014) Evaluations, international agencies and censorship: A field doer’s viewpoint. Evaluation 20(3): 296–310.

Lehtonen M (2005) OECD environmental performance review programme accountability (f)or learning? Evaluation 11(2): 169–88.

Manzano-Santaella A (2011) A realistic evaluation of fines for hospital discharges: Incorporating the history of programme evaluations in the analysis. Evaluation 17(1): 21–36.

Marchal B van Belle S van Olmen J . (2012) Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation 18(2): 192–212.

Marra M (2015) Cooperating for a more egalitarian society: Complexity theory to evaluate gender equity. Evaluation 21(1): 32–46.

Martin S (2005) Speeches and addresses: Evaluation, inspection and the improvement agenda: Contrasting fortunes in an era of evidence-based policy-making. Evaluation 11(4): 496–504.

Mayne J (2012) Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation 18(3): 270–80.

Mickwitz P (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts. Evaluation 9(4): 415–36.

Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 48–76.

Nayiga S DiLiberto D Taaka L . (2014) Strengthening patient-centred communication in rural Ugandan health centres: A theory-driven evaluation within a cluster randomized trial. Evaluation 20(4): 471–91.

Nielsen SB Winther DM (2014) A Nordic evaluation tradition? A look at the peer-reviewed evaluation literature. Evaluation 20(3): 311–31.

Norris N (2015) Democratic evaluation: The work and ideas of Barry MacDonald. Evaluation 21(2): 135–42.

Oliver S Harden A Rees R . (2005) An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy. Evaluation 11(4): 428–46.

Patton MQ (2010) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use, 1st edn. New York: Guilford Press.

Pattyn V (2014) Why organizations (do not) evaluate? Explaining evaluation activity through the lens of configurational comparative methods. Evaluation 20(3): 348–67.

Pawson R (2002a) Evidence-based policy: In search of a method. Evaluation 8(2): 157–81.

Pawson R (2002b) Evidence-based policy: The promise of ‘realist synthesis’. Evaluation 8(3): 340–58.

Pawson R (2003) Nothing as practical as a good theory. Evaluation 9(4): 471–90.

Pawson R (2013) The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. London: SAGE.

Pedersen LH Rieper O (2008) Is realist evaluation a realistic approach for complex reforms? Evaluation 14(3): 271–93.

Perrin B (2002) How to – and how not to – evaluate innovation. Evaluation 8(1): 13–28.

Pollitt C (2013) The logics of performance management. Evaluation 19(4): 346–63.

Rebien CC (1996) Participatory evaluation of development assistance: Dealing with power and facilitative learning. Evaluation 2(2): 151–71.

Reynolds M (2014) Equity-focused developmental evaluation using critical systems thinking. Evaluation 20(1): 75–95.

Rogers PJ (2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 14(1): 29–48.

Sanderson I (2000) Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation 6(4): 433–54.

Saraceno E (1999) The evaluation of local policy making in Europe: Learning from the LEADER community initiative. Evaluation 5(4): 439–57.

Saunders M (2011) Capturing effects of interventions, policies and programmes in the European context: A social practice perspective. Evaluation 17(1): 89–102.

Saunders M (2012) The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach. Evaluation 18(4): 421–36.

Schon DA (1984) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Simons H (2015) Interpret in context: Generalizing from the single case in evaluation. Evaluation 21(2): 173–88.

Stame N (2008) The European project, federalism and evaluation. Evaluation 14(2): 117–40.

Suárez-Herrera JC Springett J Kagan C (2009) Critical connections between participatory evaluation, organizational learning and intentional change in pluralistic organizations. Evaluation 15(3): 321–42.

Ton G (2012) The mixing of methods: A three-step process for improving rigour in impact evaluations. Evaluation 18(1): 5–25.

Touati N Pineault R Champagne F . (2009) Evaluating service organization models: The relevance and methodological challenges of a configurational approach. Evaluation 15(4): 375–401.

Uitto JI (2014) Evaluating environment and development: Lessons from international cooperation. Evaluation 20(1): 44–57.

Vaessen J (2006) Programme theory evaluation, multicriteria decision aid and stakeholder values: A methodological framework. Evaluation 12(4): 397–417.

Valovirta V (2002) Evaluation Utilization as Argumentation. Evaluation 8(1): 60–80.

van der Knaap P (1995) Policy evaluation and learning: Feedback, enlightenment or argumentation? Evaluation 1(2): 189–216.

van der Knaap P (2004) Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and challenges. Evaluation 10(1): 16–34.

Virtanen P Uusikylä P (2004) Exploring the Missing Links between Cause and Effect: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Micro–Macro Conversions in Programme. Evaluation 10(1): 77–91.

Westhorp G (2012) Using complexity-consistent theory for evaluating complex systems. Evaluation 18(4): 405–20.

Wolf-Branigin M (2013) Using Complexity Theory for Research and Program Evaluation. Oxford; New York: OUP USA.

Woolcock M (2013) Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation 19(3): 229–48.

Yin RK (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19(3): 321–32.

Zapico-Goñi E (2007) Matching public management, accountability and evaluation in uncertain contexts a practical suggestion. Evaluation 13(4): 421–38.