Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Journal of Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, V. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Designed Blindness: An Action Science Perspective on Program Theory Evaluation

Victor J. Friedman

Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ruppin Institute, Emek Hefer 40250, Israel, victorf{at}ruppin.ac.il

This article is intended to stimulate a dialogue between program theory evaluation and action science for the purposes of cross-fertilization and mutual enrichment. Both program theory evaluation and action science use the concept of implicit "theories of action" as a central construct in the study of social practice. However, an action science approach suggests a wider understanding of program theory that (1) specifies the links between individual reasoning and behavior to program implementation, and (2) accounts for how programs deal with dilemmas, conflict, and error. This paper begins with a systematic, though not exhaustive, comparison of program theory evaluation and action science. It analyzes an exemplar of program theory evaluation from an action science perspective to illustrate a subtheory, "designed blindness," and its impact on both program implementation and the evaluation itself. It then offers a theory for overcoming designed blindness. Finally, this article argues that action science concepts and skills can enable program theory evaluators to be more effective in confronting defensiveness and in facilitating learning among stakeholders when there is a gap between "espoused" program theory and "theory-in-use."

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 2, 161-181 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400102200203
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Journal of EvaluationHome page
B. J. Regeer, A.-C. Hoes, M. van Amstel-van Saane, F. F. Caron-Flinterman, and J. F. G. Bunders
Six Guiding Principles for Evaluating Mode-2 Strategies for Sustainable Development
American Journal of Evaluation, December 1, 2009; 30(4): 515 - 537.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EvaluationHome page
F. L. Leeuw and J.-E. Furubo
Evaluation Systems: What Are They and Why Study Them?
Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 157 - 169.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Journal of EvaluationHome page
V. J. Friedman, J. Rothman, and B. Withers
The Power of Why: Engaging the Goal Paradox in Program Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2006; 27(2): 201 - 218.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Action ResearchHome page
V. Friedman, M. Razer, and I. Sykes
Towards a Theory of Inclusive Practice: An Action Science Approach
Action Research, June 1, 2004; 2(2): 167 - 189.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management LearningHome page
V. J. Friedman
Extended Review
Management Learning, December 1, 2002; 33(4): 525 - 530.
[PDF]