Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory in Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation

  • 878 Accesses

Abstract

Distinctions are drawn among social science theory; evaluation theory; evaluators’ theory; and program theory. Similarly, the distinguishing characteristics that mark differences between results chains and theories of change are discussed. The chapter underlines the concept that logic models are incomplete if they do not spell out the assumptions (implicit/or behind-the-scenes concepts, conditions, and qualifications) within the linkages or arrows in a results chain, which explain why result A is expected to lead to result B and so on.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, A. (2004). Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: a report on early experiences. Washington: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birckmayer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice what do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, S., & White, H. (2004). Theory-based evaluation: the case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Newbury Park, California, London and New Delhi: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schroter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 2(2), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. I., & Lipsey, M. W. (2006). Roles for theory in evaluation practice. In I. Shaw, J. Greene, & M. Mark (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, S., Pleace, N., & Wallace, A. (2010). Evidence analysis for the triennial review: homelessness. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Lipsey, M. W., & Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Method choice: five discussant commentaries. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 111–118. Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. L., & McAllister, C. (1998). Theory-Based, Participatory Evaluation: A Powerful Tool for Evaluating Family Support Programs. The Bulletin of the National Center for Zero to Three, Feb/March, 1998, 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. B., & Vedung, E. (2010). Theory-Based Stakeholder Evaluation American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 295–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, M. (1996, November). Performance monitoring: how to measure effectively the results of our efforts. Presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Conference, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: addressing cause effect. In K. Forss, M. Marra & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution, and Beyond (pp. 53-96). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transactional Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, C., Piat, M., Peladeau, N., & Dagenais, C. (2000). An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review, 1, 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1998). Minimalist theory: the least theory that practice requires. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. L. (2010). Characterizing the evaluand in evaluating theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research—methods for assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Vision, Inc, 300 I Street NE, Washington, DC, 20002, USA

    Apollo M. Nkwake

Authors
  1. Apollo M. Nkwake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apollo M. Nkwake .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nkwake, A.M. (2013). Theory in Evaluation. In: Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4797-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation