Policies increasingly involve local actors, yet evaluations are mainly commissioned by central agencies, responding to their needs and values. Evaluating central policies from a local perspective requires a framework to assess the outcomes of mutually interacting policies and to rethink evaluation tasks such as identifying the object of evaluation, explicating values, and assessing causal or contribution hypotheses. REVES provides such a framework by working with trustworthy local partners and adopting their viewpoint as a guiding principle.
BagnascoALe GalèsP (eds) (2000) Cities in Contemporary Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarcaF (2016) Sintesi e conclusioni. CarabbaMPadovani R e PolverariL (eds) Le politiche di coesione in europa tra austerità e nuove sfide, Quaderni SVIMEZ, Numero Speciale47: 157–72.
3.
BarcaFMcCannPRodriguez-PoseA (2012) The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science52(1): 134–52.
4.
BecattiniC (2015) La coscienza dei luoghi. Il territorio come soggetto corale. Roma: Donzelli Editore.
5.
BefaniBRamalingamBSternE (2015) Introduction – Towards systemic approaches to evaluation and impact. IDS Bulletin46(1): 1–6.
6.
BefaniBMayneJ (2014) Process tracing and contribution analysis: A combined approach to generative causal inference for impact evaluation. IDS Bulletin45(6): 17–36.
7.
CarliRPanicciaMR (2002) L’analisi emozionale del testo. Uno strumento psicologico per leggere testi e discorsi. Milano: Franco Angeli.
8.
CousinsJBDonohueJJBloomGA (1996) Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators’ self-reported opinions, practices, and consequences. Evaluation Practice17(3): 207–26.
9.
CrostaP (2003) Reti translocali. Le pratiche d’uso del territorio come ‘politiche’ e come ‘politica’. Foedus7: 5–18.
10.
EllermanD (2006) Helping People Help Themselves. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
11.
European Commission – Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development – Unit C.4 (2017) Guidelines. Evaluation of LEADER/CLLD. Brussels.
12.
DavidsonJ (2005) Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
FunnelSCRogersPJ (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
16.
GarciaJRZazuetaA (2015) Going beyond mixed methods to mixed approaches: A systems perspective for asking the right questions. IDS Bulletin46(1): 30–43.
17.
GreeneJC (2006) Evaluation, democracy, and social change. In: ShawIFGreeneJCMarkMM (eds) Handbook of Evaluation. Policies, Programs and Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
HirschmanAO (1992) Rival Views of Market Society and Other Recent Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
HouseE (1980) Evaluating with Validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
IshikawaK (1968) Guide to Quality Control. Tokyo: JUSE.
22.
KushnerS (2009) Program evaluation and case study. In: MillsADureposGWiebeE (eds) Encyclopaedia of Case Study Research: Case Study and Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 740–3.
23.
LanzaraGF (2001) La logica del bricolage. Osservazioni sulle pratiche ‘minori’ della progettazione. Network of Engineering and Human Sciences. Working Paper 2001(04).
24.
LascoumesPLe GalèsP (2004) Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
25.
Levin-RozalisM (2000) Abduction: A logical criterion for programme and project evaluation. Evaluation6(4): 415–32.
26.
MacDonaldB (1976) Evaluation and the control of education. In: TawneyD (ed.) Curriculum Evaluation Today: Trends and Implications. London: Macmillan, 125–34.
27.
MagnaghiA (2010) Il progetto locale. Verso la coscienza di un luogo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
28.
MayneJ (2012) Contribution Analysis. Evaluation Special Issue18(3).
29.
MeldolesiL (1998) Dalla parte del Sud. Bari: Laterza.
30.
NonakaITakeuchiH (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
NonakaIToyamaR (2007) Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom (phronesis). Industrial and Corporate Change16(3): 371–94.
O’SullivanR (2012) Collaborative evaluation within a framework of stakeholder-oriented evaluation approaches. Evaluation and Program Planning35: 518–22.
34.
PattonMQ (2011) Developmental Evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.
PodemsD (ed.) (2017) Democratic Evaluation and Democracy: Exploring the Reality. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
37.
PolanyiM (1966) The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company.
38.
SaundersM (2011) Capturing effects of interventions, policies and programmes in the European context: A social practice perspective. Evaluation17(1): 89–102.
39.
SchieferU (2008) Integrated evaluation of change: A new perspective for planning and evaluation in multiple intervention environments. Lisbon: Periploi. Available at: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/10608 (accessed 28 May 2017).
40.
SchoenDReinM (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
SimonsH (2010) Democratic evaluation: Theory and practice. Paper prepared for Virtual Evaluation Conference. The University of The Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
44.
StakeR (2003) Standards-Based and Responsive Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
TendlerJ (1998) Research questions for The Ford Foundation’s Innovations in Government Programs: Documentation, evaluation, and dissemination. Mimeo, Report.
49.
WatkinsRWest MeiersMVisserYL (2012) A Guide to Assessing Needs: Essential Tools for Collecting Information, Making Decisions, and Achieving Development Results. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
50.
WeickKESutcliffeKM (2007) Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
51.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ZingaleS (2009) Il ciclo inferenziale. Deduzione, induzione, abduzione: dall’interpretazione alla progettualità. Working paper.
