There Is More to Methodology than Method

  • Louise Potvin
  • Sherri Bisset


Program Actor Program Representation Symbolic Interactionism Evaluation Practice Shared Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abma, T. A. (2005). Responsive evaluation: Its meaning and special contribution to health promotion. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bisset, S., Cargo, M., Delormier, T., Macauley, A., & Potvin, L. (2004). Legitimizing diabetes as a community health issue: a case analysis of an Aboriginal community in Canada. Health Promotion International, 19, 317–326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackburn, H., Luepker, R. V., Kline, F. G., Bracht, N., Carlaw, R., Jacobs, D., et al. (1984). The Minnesota Heart Health Program: A research and demonstration project in cardiovascular disease prevention. In J. D. Matarazzo, N. E. Miller, S. M. Weiss, J. A. Herd & S. M. Weiss (Eds.), Behavioral health: A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention (pp. 1171–1178). Silver Spring, MD: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Genève: Ed. Droz.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, P. (1995). The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, &; C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Concepts, methods and contexts (pp. 201–225). New York: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In: R. F. Connor, D. G. Altman, & C. Jackson (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual, Vol 9 (pp. 26–48). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Carleton, R. A., Lasater, T. M., Assaf, A., Lefebvre, R. C., & McKinlay, S. M. (1987). The Pawtucket Heart Health Program: 1. An experiment in population-based disease prevention. The Rhode Island Medical Journal, 70, 533–538.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation; Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L’acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  12. Farquhar, J. W., Fortmann, S. P., Maccoby, N., Haskell, W. L., Williams, P. T., Flora, J. A., et al. (1985). The stanford five city project: Design and methods. American Journal of Epidemiology, 122, 323–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquhar, S. A., Parker, E. A., Schulz, A. J., & Israel, B. A. (2006). Application of qualitative methods in program planning for health promotion interventions. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 234–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flay, B. R. (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of -promotion programs. Preventive Medicine, 15, 451–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gendron, S. (2001). La pratique participative en santé publique, l’émergence d’un paradigme. Montréal: Thèse de doctorat présentée à l’Université de Montréal. Retrieved in January 2008 from : DID=726370931&RQT=309&attempt=1
  16. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discoveries of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Guba, Y., & Lincoln, E. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hartz, Z. A., Denis, J-L., Moreira, E., & Matida, A. (2008). From knowledge to action: challenges and opportunities for increasing the use of evaluation in health promotion policies and practices. In L. Potvin & D. V. McQueen (Eds.), Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas: Values and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hawe, P., & Riley, T. (2005). Ecological theory in practice: Illustrations from a community-based intervention to promote the health of recent mothers. Prevention Science, 6, 227–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lantz, P. M., Viruell-Fuentes, E., Israel, B. A., Softley, D., Guzman, R. (2001). Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 495–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (2006). Changer de société – Refaire de la sociologie. Paris: La découverte.Google Scholar
  23. Le Breton, D. (2004). L’interactionisme symbolique. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  24. Levy, R. (1994). Croyance et doute: une vision paradigmatique des méthodes qualitatives. Ruptures, revue transdisciplinaire en santé, 1, 92–100.Google Scholar
  25. Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation. An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Mercille, G. (2008). A realist approach to synthesizing evaluation results. In L. Potvin & D. V. McQueen (eds.), Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas: Values and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. The new century text. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2004). Realistic evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 362–367). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Poland, B., Frohlich, K. L., & Cargo, M. (2008). Context as a fundamental dimension of health-promotion program evaluation. In L. Potvin & D. V. McQueen (Eds.), Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas: Values and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Potvin, L., Cargo, M., McComber, A., Delormier, T., Macaulay, A. C. (2003) Implementing Participatory Intervention and Research in Communities: Lessons from the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1295–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Potvin, L., Gendron, S., & Bilodeau, A. (2006). Três posturas ontológicas concernentes à natureza dos programas de saúde: implicações para a avaliação. In: M. L. M. Bosi & F. J. Mercado (Eds.), Avaloaçao qualitative de programas de saude. Enfoques emergentes. Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes Editorial.Google Scholar
  34. Potvin, L., & McQueen, D. V. (2008). Practical dilemmas for health-promotion evaluation. In L. Potvin & D. V. McQueen (Eds.), Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas: Values and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Preskill, H., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation use topical interest group survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Savage, C. L., Xu, Y., Lee, R., Rose, B. L., Kappesser, M., Anthony, S. P. (2006). A case study in the use of community-based participatory research in public health nursing. Public Health Nursing, 23, 472–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schulz, A. J., Isreal, B. A., Parker, E. A., Lockett, M., Hill, Y., & Wills, R. (2001). The east side village health worker partnership: Integrating research with action to reduce health disparities. Public Health Reports, 116, 548–557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shadish, W. R., Jr., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Springett, J. (2001). Participatory approaches to evaluation in health promotion. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion: Principles and perspectives (pp. 83–105). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No 92.Google Scholar
  40. Stake, R. E. (Ed.) (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus Ohio: Merril.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative research. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Thurston, W. E., Graham, J. & Hatfield, J. (2003). Evaluability assessment a catalyst for program change and improvement. Evaluation and the Health Profession, 26, 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thurston, W. E., & Potvin, L. (2003). Evaluability assessment: A tool for incorporating evaluation in social change programs. Evaluation, 9, 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weber, M. (1952). The essentials of bureaucratic organization: An ideal-type construction. In R. K. Merton, A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, & H. Selvin (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 18, 21–22). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation. Methods for studying programs and policy, 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Wholey, J. S., & Newcomer, K. E. (Eds.) (1989). Improving government performance : evaluation strategies for strengthening public agencies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Potvin
    • 1
  • Sherri Bisset
  1. 1.Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations