|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Reconstructing Program Theories: Methods Available and Problems to be Solved
Frans L. Leeuw
University of Utrecht, P.O. Box 2730, 3500 GS Utrecht, The Netherlands, f.leeuw{at}owinsp.nl, flleeuw{at}cuci.nl
This paper discusses methods for reconstructing theories underlying programs and policies. It describes three approaches. One is empirical-analytical in nature and focuses on interviews, documents and argumentational analysis. The second has strategic assessment, group dynamics, and dialogue as its core. The third has cognitive and organizational psychology as its foundation. For each of the three approaches, case-illustrations are given. These approaches can help to make the process of reconstructing underlying program theories more open for scrutiny. This is important because mis-reconstruction of policy and program theories is dangerous. All three approaches have a number of weaknesses to be remedied. The paper discusses these shortcomings and presents some suggestions for overcoming the limitations are presented.
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 1,
5-20 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400302400102
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
F. J. G. Janssens and I. F. de Wolf
Analyzing the Assumptions of a Policy Program: An Ex-ante Evaluation of ''Educational Governance'' in the Netherlands
American Journal of Evaluation,
September 1, 2009;
30(3):
411 - 425.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Raymer
Big returns for a little more investment: Mapping theory in emergent research
Action Research,
March 1, 2009;
7(1):
49 - 68.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hense, W. C. Kriz, and J. Wolfe
Putting Theory-Oriented Evaluation Into Practice: A Logic Model Approach for Evaluating SIMGAME
Simulation Gaming,
February 1, 2009;
40(1):
110 - 133.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. van der Knaap, F. L. Leeuw, S. Bogaerts, and L. T. J. Nijssen
Combining Campbell Standards and the Realist Evaluation Approach: The Best of Two Worlds?
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2008;
29(1):
48 - 57.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Vaessen
Programme Theory Evaluation, Multicriteria Decision Aid and Stakeholder Values: A Methodological Framework
Evaluation,
October 1, 2006;
12(4):
397 - 417.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Molas-Gallart and A. Davies
Toward Theory-Led Evaluation: The Experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2006;
27(1):
64 - 82.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Bezzi
Evaluation Pragmatics
Evaluation,
January 1, 2006;
12(1):
56 - 76.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Rosas
Concept Mapping as a Technique for Program Theory Development: An Illustration Using Family Support Programs
American Journal of Evaluation,
September 1, 2005;
26(3):
389 - 401.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Davis
The Limits of Realist Evaluation: Surfacing and Exploring Assumptions in Assessing the Best Value Performance Regime
Evaluation,
July 1, 2005;
11(3):
275 - 295.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. M. Ehren, F. L. Leeuw, and J. Scheerens
On the Impact of the Dutch Educational Supervision Act: Analyzing Assumptions Concerning the Inspection of Primary Education
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2005;
26(1):
60 - 76.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Kautto and J. Simila
Recently Introduced Policy Instruments and Intervention Theories
Evaluation,
January 1, 2005;
11(1):
55 - 68.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Hanberger and I. Schild
Strategies to Evaluate a University-Industry Knowledge-exchange Programme
Evaluation,
October 1, 2004;
10(4):
475 - 492.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Mark
From the Editor
American Journal of Evaluation,
June 1, 2004;
25(2):
137 - 140.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Yampolskaya, T. M. Nesman, M. Hernandez, and D. Koch
Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Logic Model and Articulate a Program Theory: A Case Example
American Journal of Evaluation,
June 1, 2004;
25(2):
191 - 207.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Bamberger, J. Rugh, M. Church, and L. Fort
Shoestring Evaluation: Designing Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data Constraints
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2004;
25(1):
5 - 37.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Mark
From the Editor
American Journal of Evaluation,
June 1, 2003;
24(2):
133 - 136.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
