Realism, as a foundational philosophy and as an applied approach to inquiry, is increasingly visible in social science. Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley have provided an important service to the field of evaluation by applying some of the basic concepts of realism to frame an approach that they refer to as ‘realistic evaluation’. As they note, their contribution largely involves taking concepts of realism that are attracting attention in many social sciences and making them accessible to evaluators. We applaud them for their efforts, and look forward to their continued development and promotion of a realism-based view of evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, J. L. , R. Harré and E. C. Way (1995) Realism Rescued. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
2.
Baert, P. (1996) ‘Realist Philosophy of the Social Sciences and Economics: A Critique’, Cambridge Journal of Economics20: 513–522.
3.
Bennett, T. (1991) ‘The Effectiveness of a Police-Initiated Fear-Reducing Strategy’, British Journal of Criminology31: 1–14.
4.
Bhaskar, R. A. (1989) The Possibility of Naturalism. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester.
5.
Bhaskar, R. A. (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.
6.
Boyd, R. (1991) ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’, in R. Boyd, P. Gasper and J. D. Trout (eds) The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Bunge, M. (1997) ‘Mechanism and Explanation’, Philosophy of Social Sciences27: 410–465.
8.
Campbell, D. T. (1966) ‘Pattern Matching as an Essential in Distal Knowing’, in K. R. Hammond (ed.) The Psychology of Egon Brunswik, pp. 81–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
9.
Campbell, D. T. (1969) ‘Reforms as Experiments’, American Psychologist24: 409–429.
10.
Campbell, D. T. (1974) ‘Evolutionary Epistemology’, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper, pp. 413–463. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
11.
Campbell, D. T. (1977) Descriptive Epistemology: Psychological, Sociological and Evolutionary. William James Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Campbell, D. T. (1986) ‘Relabelling Internal and External Validity for Applied Social Scientists’, in W. M. K. Trochim (ed.) Advances in Quasi-Experimental Design and Analysis, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Campbell, D. T. and J. Stanley (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Evaluation: Evaluation in Social Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
14.
Caracelli, V. J. and J. C. Greene (1997) ‘Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs’, in J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Chen, H. T. (1990) Theory-Driven Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Churchland, P. M. (1993) ‘Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes’, in A. I. Goldman (ed.) Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, pp. 255–270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Cook, T. D. and D. T. Campbell (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
18.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975) ‘Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology’, American Psychologist30: 116–127.
19.
Cronbach, L. J. (1986) ‘Social Enquiry by and for Earthlings’, in D. W. Fiske and R. A. Shweder (eds) Metatheory in Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Fabiano, E. , D. Robinson and F. Porporino (1990) Preliminary Assessment of the Cognitive Skills for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Unit Paper 46. London: Home Office.
21.
Feinstein, O. (1998) ‘Review of Realistic Evaluation’, Evaluation4: 243–246.
22.
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Hannan, B. (1990) ‘‘‘Non-Scientific Realism’’ About Propositional Attitudes as a Response to Eliminativist Arguments’, Behavior and Philosophy18(2): 21–31.
24.
Harré, R. (1986) Varieties of Realism. Oxford: Blackwell.
25.
Harré, R. (1992) ‘What is Real in Psychology: A Plea for Persons’, Theory and Psychology2: 153–158.
26.
Henry, G. (1996) Community-Based Accountability: A Theory of Accountability and School Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan78(1): 85–90.
27.
Henry, G. T. and G. Julnes (1998) ‘Realist Values and Valuation’, in G. T. Henry, G. Julnes and M. M. Mark (eds) Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Henry, G. T. , G. Julnes and M. M. Mark (eds) (1998) Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
House, E. R. (1991) ‘Realism in Research’, Educational Researcher20: 2–9.
30.
House, E. R. (1995) ‘Putting Things Together Coherently: Logic and Justice’, in D. Fournier (ed.) Reasoning in Evaluation: Inferential Links and Leaps, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Hurley, S. (1989) Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Julnes, G. (1998) ‘Principal Components Analysis, Factor Analysis, and Cluster Analysis’, in G. J. Miller and M. L. Whicker (eds) Handbook of Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods in Public Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker.
33.
Julnes, G. and M. M. Mark (1998) ‘Knowledge Construction in a Realist World’, in G. T. Henry, G. Julnes and M. M. Mark (eds) Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
34.
Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
35.
Laycock, G. (1985) Property Marking: A Deterrent to Domestic Burglary?, Crime Prevention Unit Paper 3. London: Home Office.
36.
Lipsey, M. W. and D. B. Wilson (1993) ‘The Efficacy of Psychological, Educational, and Behavioral Treatment: Confirmation from Meta-Analysis’, American Psychologist48: 1181–1209.
37.
Mark, M. M. (1986) ‘Validity Typologies and the Logic and Practice of Quasi-Experimentation’, in W. M. K. Trochim (ed.) Advances in Quasi-Experimental Design and Analysis, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Mark, M. M. (1990) ‘From Program Theory to Tests of Program Theory’, in L. Bickman (ed.) Advances in Program Theory, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Mark, M. M. , G. T. Henry and G. Julnes (1998) ‘A Realist Theory of Evaluation Practice’, in G. T. Henry, G. Julnes and M. M. Mark (eds) Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice, New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
Mark, M. M. , G. T. Henry and G. Julnes (forthcoming) Evaluation, A Realist Approach: Monitoring, Classification, Causal Analysis, and Values Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
Mohr, L. B. (1995) Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Mohr, L. B. (1996) The Causes of Human Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Munro, D. (1992) ‘Process Versus Structure and Levels of Analysis in Psychology: Towards Integration Rather than Reduction of Theories’, Theory and Psychology2: 109–127.
44.
Patton, M. Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Popper, K. R. (1967) The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
47.
Porporino, F. and D. Robinson (1995) ‘An Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program with Canadian Federal Offenders’, in R. Ross and R. Ross (eds) Thinking Straight. Ottawa: Air Training Publications.
48.
Putnam, H. (1987) The Many Faces of Realism. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
49.
Putnam, H. (1994) Words and Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
Reichardt, C. S. and M. M. Mark (1998) ‘Quasi-Experimentation’, in L. Bickman and D. J. Rog (eds) Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Reichardt, C. S. and S. F. Rallis (1994) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52.
Sellars, R. W. (1970) Principles of Emergent Realism: Philosophical Essays Compiled by W. P. Warren. St Louis, MO: Warren H. Green.
53.
Sellars, W. (1963) Science, Perception and Reality. New York: Humanities Press.
54.
Shadish, W. R. (1993) ‘Critical Multiplism: A Research Strategy and its Attendant Tactics’, in L. Sechrest (ed.) Program Evaluation: A Pluralistic Enterprise, New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 60. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
Shadish, W. R. , T. D. Cook and L. C. Leviton (1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
Thomson, P. (1995) ‘Evolutionary Epistemology and Scientific Realism’, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems18: 165–191.
57.
Trochim, W. M. K. (1985) ‘Pattern Matching, Construct Validity and Conceptualization in Program Evaluation’, Evaluation Review9: 575–604.
58.
Weick, K. E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.
59.
Wholey, J. S. (1983) Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
