This article discusses both the methodological and theoretical principles involved in comparative evaluation. The term comparative evaluation refers to research in which an evaluation and the findings of the evaluation process are set in a comparative framework. The principles on which the comparative evaluation process should be based, however, are not always clear. This article analyses the content of these principles and begins with a discussion of the purpose and function of comparative evaluation. This is followed by an analysis of four different principles common to the method of comparative evaluation: selection of the evaluation object; the level of comparison; conceptual comprehension; and the analysis of the findings of an evaluation. When these principles are applied to the comparative evaluation study, the study most likely produces comparable and reliable information for organizational development work.
Almond, G. A. and G. B. Powell, eds (1992) `Introduction', in Comparative Politics Today: A World View, 5th edn. New York: Harper Collins .
2.
Anderson, M.J. and R.N. Shaw (1999) `A Comparative Evaluation of Qualitative Data Analytic Techniques in Identifying Volunteer Motivation in Tourism', Tourism Management20(1): 99-106.
3.
Argyris, C. (1962) Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin .
4.
Balthasar, A. and S. Rieder (2000) `Learning from Evaluations. Effects of the Evaluation of the Swiss Energy 2000 Programme', Evaluation6(3): 245-60.
5.
Bonnell, V.E. (1980) `The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology', Comparative Studies in Society and History22(2): 156-73.
6.
Cheetham, J., E.J. Mullen, H. Soydan and K. Tengvald (1998) `Evaluation as a Tool in the Development of Social Work Discourse. National Diversity or Shared Preoccupations? Reflections from a Conference', Evaluation4(1): 9-24.
7.
Coe, C. (1999) `Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multi-government Efforts', Public Administration Review59(2): 110-5.
8.
Cohen, D.K. and J.P. Spillane (1994) `National Education Indicators and Traditions of Accountability', in Making Education Count: Developing and Using International Indicators, pp. 323-37. Paris: OECD.
9.
Creemers, B.P.M. and D. Reynolds (1996) `Issues and Implications of International Effectiveness Research', International Journal of Educational Research25(3): 257-65.
10.
Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1990) `Comparing Semi-corruption among Parliamentarians in Britain and in Australia', in E. yen (ed.) Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research, pp. 113-33. London : Sage.
11.
Kanter, R. and D. Summers (1994) `Doing Well While Doing Good: Dilemmas of Performance Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations and the Need for Multiple-constituency Approach', in D. McKevitt and A. Lawton (eds) Public Sector Management: Theory, Critique and Practice, pp. 220-36. London: Sage.
12.
Laukkanen, R. (1997) `Vertailevan tutkimuksen mahdollisuuksia koulutusjärjestelmän arvioinnissa' [Possibilities of Comparative Research in Evaluation of Educational Systems], Hallinnon tutkimus16(1): 15-26.
13.
Manns, C.L. and J.G. March (1978) `Financial Adversity, Internal Competition and Curriculum Change in a University', Administrative Science Quarterly23(4): 541-52.
14.
Mayer, L.C. (1989) Redefining Comparative Politics: Promise versus Performance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Meyer, M.W. and L.G. Zucker (1989) Permanently Failing Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Pennings, J.M. and P.S. Goodman (1979) `Toward a Workable Framework', in J. M. Pennings and P. S. Goodman (eds) New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness , pp. 146-84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative Politics: Theory and Method. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
18.
Przeworski, A. (1987) `Methods of Cross-national Research, 1970-1983: An Overview', in M. Dierkes, H. N. Weiler and A. B. Antal (eds) Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience. Aldershot: Gower.
19.
Ragin, C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
Roberts, G.K. (1985) `The Explanation of Politics: Comparison, Strategy and Theory', in P. G. Lewis, D. C. Potter and F. G. Castles (eds) The Practice of Comparative Politics, pp. 285-304. Avon: Longman/Open University Press.
21.
Salminen, A. (1998) Hallintotiede: Organisaatioiden hallinnolliset perusteet [Administrative Science: The Administrative Grounds of Organisations] . Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus .
22.
Salminen, A. and S. Lehtinen (1982) `Hallintotiede ja vertaileva tutkimus' [Administrative Science and Comparative Study]. Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Research Papers, No. 86.
23.
Sartori, G. (1991) `Comparing and Miscomparing', The Journal of Theoretical Politics3(3): 243-57.
24.
Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook and L.C. Leviton (1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
25.
Vartiainen, P. (1994) `Palveluorganisaatioiden tuloksellisuusarviointi, teoriat ja käytäntö. Päivähoitoon, erityisesti päiväkoteihin kohdistuva monitahoarviointi' [Efficiency Evaluation in Service Organisations, Theory and Practice. Multiple Constituency Evaluation of Children's Day-care Centres], Acta Wasaensia40, Hallintotiede2.
26.
Vartiainen, P. (1997) `Kokemuksia terveydenhuollon laadun arvioinnista SERVQUALmenetelmällä' [Assessing Quality in Health Care with SERVQUAL Method] . Suomen Lääkärilehti52(16): 1989-95.
27.
Vartiainen, P. (1998) `Local Economic Development Policy in Finland: Key Actors View to Implementation', in K. T. Liou (ed.) Handbook of Economic Development, pp. 401-25. New York: Marcel Dekker.
28.
Weiss, C.H. (1972) Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
Weiss, C.H. (1995) `Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives', in J. P. Conell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
30.
Weiss, C.H. (1999) `The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy' , Evaluation5(4): 468-86.
