Policy Evaluation: Conceptual Chaos

Document Type : Research Article

Author

PhD in Public Policy, University of Tehran

Abstract

In this article we illustrate that beyond the conceptual chaos of evaluation studies, there is a continuous and relevant flow of knowledge. This knowledge is multidisciplinary and has progressed along with evolution of epistemological and methodological issues in social science and has passed the same ups and downs. Epistemological evolution is reflected in evaluation definitions and led to new models. Therefore, evaluation is mostly a method instead of a specialized concept. It has evolved by scholars to response to needs of stakeholders by scholars in different fields. Secondary importance of the conceptual aspect makes the evaluation literature face various interpretations of basic concepts. Hence, those concepts which are considered in evaluation studies are identified within the conceptual framework of the scholar and their meaning are arbitrary as well.

Keywords

References

الف) فارسی
1-     اشتریان، کیومرث. 1390. مقدمه‌ای بر روش سیاستگذاری فرهنگی. اداره کل مطالعات اجتماعی و فرهنگی شهرداری تهران. تهران: جامعه شناسان.
2-     الوانی، مهدی. 1385. تصمیم‌گیری و تعیین خطمشی دولتی. چاپ یازدهم. تهران: سمت.
3-     الوانی، مهدی و فتاح شریف زاده. 1390. فرایند سیاستگذاری عمومی. چاپ هشتم. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
4-     پارسونز، واین. 1385. مبانی سیاستگذاری عمومی و تحلیل سیاست‌ها. ترجمه حمیدرضا ملک محمدی. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
5-     چالمرز، آلن اف. 1384. چیستی علم: درآمدی بر مکاتب علم شناسی فلسفی. ترجمه سعید زیباکلام. تهران: سمت.
6-     شافریتز، جی.ام و کریستوفر پی. بریک. 1390. سیاستگذاری عمومی در ایالات متحده آمریکا. ترجمه حمیدرضا ملک محمدی. تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق7.
7-     لستر، جیمز پی. و جوزف استوارت جی. آر. 1381. فرایند خطمشی گذاری عمومی: رویکردی تکاملی. ترجمه مجتبی طبری، تورج مجیبی میکلایی و سهیل خورشیدی. تهران: نشر ساوالان.
8-     مانهایم، یارول و ریچارد ریچ. 1385. روش‌های تحقیق در علوم سیاسی: تحلیل تجربی. ترجمه لی‌لا سازگار. چاپ دوم. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
9-     مولر، پیر. 1378. سیاستگذاری عمومی. ترجمه حمیدرضا ملک محمدی. تهران: دادگستر.
10-  هاولت، مایکل و ام. رامش. 1380. مطالعه خطمشی عمومی. ترجمه عباس منوریان و ابراهیم گلشن. تهران: مرکز آموزش مدیریت دولتی.
11-  وحید، مجید. 1383. سیاستگذاری عمومی. تهران: میزان.
 
 
ب) انگلیسی
12-     Alkin, Marvin C., ed. 2004. Evaluation Roots. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412984157.
13-     Ballart, Xavier. 1998. “Spanish Evaluation Practice Versus Program Evaluation Theory: Cases From Five Policy Areas.”American Journal ofEvaluation 4 (2): 149-70. doi:10.1177/13563899822208509.
14-     Braybrooke, David, and Charlez E. Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision, Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-Macmillan Limited.
15-     Chouinard, Jill Anne, and J. Bradley Cousins. 2009. “A Review and Synthesis of Current Research on Cross-Cultural Evaluation.” American Journal of Evaluation 30 (4): 457-94. doi:10.1177/1098214009349865.
16-     Dunn, Willaim N. 1994-2012. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
17-     Government Chief Social Researcher's Office. 2003. The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes for Policy Evaluation and Analysis. London: Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, Admiralty Arch, The Mall, SWIA2WH.
18-     Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
19-     Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2001. Guidelines and Checklists for Constructivist (a.k.a. Fourth Generation) Evaluation. Evaluation Checklists Project. http:// www.wmich.edu/ evalctr/checklists.
20-     Hanberger, Anders. 2006. “Evaluation of and for Democracy.” Evaluation 12 (1): 17–37. doi:10.1177/1356389006064194.
21-     Hansen, Hanne Foss. 2005. “Choosing Evaluation Models: A Discussion on Evaluation Design.” Evaluation 11 (4): 447–62. doi:10.1177/1356389005060265.
22-     Internal Oversight Service. 2007. Evaluation Handbook. Internal Oversight Service, Evaluation Section, IOS/EVS/PI/63, December.
23-     Langbein, Laura and Claire L. Felbinger. 2006. Public Program Evaluation: a Statistical Guide. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
24-     Mark, Melvin M., Jennifer C. Greene, and Ian F. Shaw. 2006. “Introduction: The Evaluation of Policies, Programs, and Practices.” In The Sage Handbook of Evaluation, edited by Ian F. Shaw, Jennifer C. Greene, and Melvin M. Mark, 1-29. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781848608078.
25-     OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010. DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance. Development Assistance Committee. http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html.
26-     Preskill, Hallie, and Darlene Russ-Eft. 2005. Building Evaluation Capacity. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412983549.
27-     Purdon, Susan, Carli Lessof, Kandy Woodfield, and Caroline Bryson. 2001. Research Methods for Policy Evaluation. Research Working Paper. no. 2.Department for Work and Pensions, National Centre for Social Research.
28-     Rossi, Peter Henry, Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
29-     Seigart, Denise. 2005. “Feminist Evaluation.”InEncyclopedia of Evaluation, edited by Sandra Mathison, 154-57. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412950558.
30-     Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Laura C. Leviton. 1991. Foundations of Program Evaluation, Theories of Practice. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
31-     Stufflebeam, Daniel L. 2001. “Foundational Models for 21st Century Program Evaluation” New Directions for Evaluation. no. 89. Jossey-Bass, A Publishing Unit of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
32-     Treasury Board of Canada. 1998. Program Evaluation Methods: Measurement and Attribution of Program Results. Third Edition, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Public Affairs Branch, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, March.
33-     UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2009. Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York: NY 10017.
34-   W. K. Kellogg Foundation. 1998. Evaluation Handbook. W. K. Kellog Foundation publication.
 
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 1, Issue 3
2015
Pages 9-28

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics