Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology: Building Bridges to Knowledge

  • Chapter
Evaluationsforschung

Part of the book series: Sozialwissenschaftliche Evaluationsforschung ((volume 1))

  • 881 Accesses

Abstract

Program evaluation draws on a set of social science procedures to systematically collect, analyze, interpret and communicate descriptive and explanatory information about social programs. Until recently evaluation texts tended to detail a tool chest of methods available to the evaluator without concomitant attention to how and when various methods should be used in practice. Initially, evaluators drew on existing methods and theories from the academic disciplines, typically in the social sciences, in which they were trained. However, as a transdiscipline evaluators not only adapted concepts and methods from their disciplines of origin, they also invented or combined methods in a new ways to achieve evaluation purposes. (Scriven 1991; Shadish/Cook/Leviton 1991). Evaluation work is practiced within substantive disciplinary domains, such as, health, education, criminal justice, employment, international aid, and others. Strong linkages between social science theory and theories about the program to be evaluated are necessary (Riggin 1990). Domain-specific evaluator practices are responsive to their contextually unique circumstances.

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 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bentz, V. M./ Shapiro, J. J. (1998):Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L.(2000): Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. (4th Ed.). Need-ham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (Ed.) (2000): Validity & Social Experimentation: Don Campbell’s Legacy. (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (Ed.) (2000): Research Design: Don Campbell’s Legacy. (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L./ Rog, D. J. (Eds.) (1998): Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, H. M. Jr. (1982): Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J./ Hunter, A. (1989): Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T./ Fiske, D. W. (1959): Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 1959, pp. 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caracelli, V. (1999): Strengthening Quality at GAO: The Interface of Contemporary Auditing and Evaluation Professions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, Florida. November 4, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracelli, V. J./ Greene, J. C. (1993): Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (no. 2), Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1993, pp. 195–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracelli, V. J./ Greene, J. C. (1997): Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. In: Greene, J. C./ Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.): Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E. (1996): From Incrementalism to Ideology and Back: Can Producers of Policy Information Adjust to the Full Spectrum of Political Climates. Distinguished Public Policy Lecture Series, 1996. Center for Urban Affairs and Research, Evanston, Illinois (February 29, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E. (1997): The Coming Transformations in Evaluation. In: Chelimsky, E./ Shadish, W. (Eds.): Evaluation for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E. (1997): The Political Environment of Evaluation and What it Means for the Development of the Field. In Chelimsky, E./ Shadish, W. R.: Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H.-T. (1990): Theory-driven Evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H.-T./ Rossi, P. H. (1987): The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, New York, NY: Pergamon Press, 1987, pp. 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D./ Campbell, D. T. (1979): Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (1985): Postpositivist critical multiplism. In: Shotland, R L./ Mark, M. M. (Eds.): Social Science and Social Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 21–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D./ Cooper, H./ Cordray, D. S./ Hartmann, H./ Hedges, L. V./ Light, R. J./ Louis, T. A./ Mosteller, F. (1992): Meta-analysis for Explanation: A casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooksy, L. J. (1999): The Meta-Evaluand: The Evaluation of Project TEAMS. American Journal of Evaluation. Vol. 20, No. 1, 1999, pp. 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H./ Hedges, L. V. (Eds.) (1994): The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. B./ Whitmore E. (1998): Framing Participatory Evaluation. In: Whitmore, E. (Ed.): Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. No. 80, 1998, pp. 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1994): Research Designs: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998): The Foundations of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J./Associates. (1980): Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, L-e. (1997): A Pragmatic Basis for Mixed-Method Designs. In Greene, J. C./ Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.): Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, L-e. (2000): Seriously Seeking Fairness: Strategies for Crafting Non-partisan Evaluations in a Partisan World. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978): The Research Act: An Introduction to Sociological Methods (chap. 10). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1997): Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K./ Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2000): Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. (1999): Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1994): Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlandson, D. A./ Harris, E. L./ Skipper, B. L./ Allen, S. D. (1993): Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D. M./ Kaftarian, S. J./ Wandersman, A. (Eds.) (1996): Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J. (1993): Survey Research Methods (2nd Ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G. (Ed.) (1990): The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (1993): The Role of Theory in Qualitative Program Evaluation. In Flinders, D. J./ Mills, G. E. (Eds.): Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. New York, NY: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (1994): Qualitative Program Evaluation: Practice and Promise. In: Denzin, N. K./ Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 530–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (1999): The inequality of performance measurements. Evaluation, 5(2), 1999, pp. 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (1999): Understanding Social Programs Through Evaluation. In: Denzin, N. K./ Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 981–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C./ Benjamin, L./ Goodyear, L./ Lowe, S. (1999): The Merits of Mixing Methods in Applied Social Research (Working Draft), APPAM Conference, Washington, D.C., Nov.6, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C./ Caracelli, V. J. (1997): Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J./ Caracelli, V. J. (1997): Defining and Describing the Paradigm Issue in Mixed-Method Evaluation. In: Greene, J. C./ Caracelli, V. J.: Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C./ Caracelli, V. J./ Graham, W. F. (1989): Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (no. 3), 1989, pp. 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (1989): Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. (1999): Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick, T. E./ Bickman, L./ Rog, D. J. (1993): Applied Research Design: A Practical Guideo Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, G. T./ Julnes, G./ Mark, M. M. (Eds.) (1998): Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A. (1994): Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrakas, P. J. (1993): Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision. (2nd ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series, V. 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S./ Guba, E. G. (1985): Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W./ Wilson, D. B. (in press, 2000): Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1993): Theory as Method: Small Theories of Treatments. In: Sechrest. L. B./ Scott, G. G. (Eds.) Understanding Causes and Generalizing About Them. New Directions for Program Evaluation. No. 57, pp. 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1997): What Can You Build With Thousands of Bricks? Musings on the cumulation of knowledge in Program Evaluation. In: Rog, D. J./ Fournier D. (Eds.) Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods, New Directions for Evaluation, No. 76, pp. 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M. (1990): From Program Theory to Tests of Program Theory In: Bickman, L. (Ed.): Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp.37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M./ Henry, G. T./ Julnes, G. (in press, 2000): Evaluation: an Integrated Framewark for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M./ Shotland, R. L. (Eds.) (1987): Multiple Methods in Program Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation (No. 35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquart, J. M. (1990): A Pattern-Matching Approach to Link Program Theory and Evaluation Data. In: Bickman, L. (Ed.): Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, S. (1988): Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1996): Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 41. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, R. B. (1996): Cognitive Research in Reducing Nonsampling Errors in the Current Population Survey supplement on Race and Ethnicity. Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 96: Nonsampling Errors. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D. M. (1997): Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B./ Huberrnan, A. M. (1994): Qualitative data analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixed-Method Collaboration (1994). Mixed-Method Evaluation: Developing Quality Criteria through Concept Mapping. Evaluation Practice, 15 (no. 2),1994, pp. 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, K. E. (Ed.) (1997): Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noblit, G. W./ Hare, R. D. (1998): Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies, Qualitative Research Methods, No. 11. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. M./ Rogers, P. J. (1999): Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1987): Evaluation’s Political Inherency: Practical implications for design and use. In: Palumbo, D. J. (Ed.): The Politics of Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 100–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1997): Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R./ Tilley, N. (1997): Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, B. (1998): Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, No. 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 367–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posavac, E. J./ Carey, R. G. (1997): Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preskill, H./ Torres, R. T. (1999): Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1989): The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, C. S./ Rallis, S. F. (Eds.) (1994): The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggin, L. J. C. (1990): Linking Program Theory and Social Science Theory. In: Bickman, L. (Ed.): Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H.,/ Freeman, H. E./ Lipsey, M. W. (1999): Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (6th Edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N./ Sudman, S. (Eds) (1995): Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. S. (1991): Evaluation Thesaurus (4th Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, L./ Davis, M. F./ Stickle, T. R./ McKnight, P. E. (2000): Understanding „method“ variance. In: Bickman, L. (Ed.): Research Design: Don Campbell’s Legacy, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, I. E. (1991): Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R. Jr./ Cook, T. D./ Leviton, L. C. (1991): Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995): The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A./ Corbin, J. (1990): Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S./ Bradburn, N./ Schwarz, N. (1995): Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A./ Teddlie, C. (1998): Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitiative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (James R. Sanders, Chair) (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M. K. (1985): Pattern matching. validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 9 (5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp.575–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M. K. (1989): Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. pp.355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. M. K. (1999): The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1995). Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to Congress. PEMD-95-1. Washington, D.C.: GAO, January 30,1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (2000). Managing for Results: Views on Ensuring the Usefulness of Agency Performance Information to Congress. GAO/GGD-00-35: Washington, D.C.: GAO, January 26, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. Cholesterol Treatment: A review of the Clinical Trials Evidence. GAOIPEMD-96-7. Washington, D.C.: GAO, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1993). Developing and Using Questionnaires. GAO/PEMD-10.1.7. Washington, D.C.: GAO, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). The Evaluation Synthesis (PEMD-10.1.2). Washington, D.C.: GAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1991). Designing Evaluations (PEMD-10.1.4). Washington, D.C.: GAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1991). Using Structured Interviewing Techniques (PEMD-10.1.5). Washington, D.C.: GAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1990). Prospective Evaluation Methods: The Prospective Evaluation Synthesis (Transfer Paper 10.1.10). Washington, D.C.: GAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. (1997): Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, B. R./ Sanders, J. R./ Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997): Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (2nd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. J./ Campbell, D. T./ Schwartz, R. D./ Sechrest, L. (2000): Unobtrusive Measures (revised edition). Sage Classics 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E./ Campbell, D. T./ Schwartz, R. D./ Sechrest, L. (1996): Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1987): Where politics and evaluation research meet. In: Palumbo, D.J. (Ed.): The Politics of Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. J. (1998): Evaluation (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S./ Hatry, H. P./ Newcomer, K. E. (Eds.) (1994): Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S. (1994): Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In: Wholey J. S./ Hatry, H. P./ Newcomer, K. E. (Eds.): Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 15–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R K (1994): Case Study Research: Designs and Methods: Applied Social Research Methods, vol 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Valerie J. Caracelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Reinhard Stockmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Leske + Budrich, Opladen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Caracelli, V.J. (2000). Methodology: Building Bridges to Knowledge. In: Stockmann, R. (eds) Evaluationsforschung. Sozialwissenschaftliche Evaluationsforschung, vol 1. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-92229-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-92229-8_7

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-322-92230-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-92229-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation