This article introduces a new approach to program theory evaluation called theory-based stakeholder evaluation or the TSE model for short. Most theory-based approaches are program theory driven and some are stakeholder oriented as well. Practically, all of the latter fuse the program perceptions of the various stakeholder groups into one unitary program theory. The TSE model keeps the program theories of the diverse stakeholder groups apart from each other and from the program theory embedded in the institutionalized intervention itself. This represents, the authors argue, an important clarification and extension of the standard theory-based evaluation. The TSE model is elaborated to enhance theory-based evaluation of interventions characterized by conflicts and competing program theories. The authors argue that especially in evaluations of complex and complicated multilevel and multisite interventions, the presence of competing theories is likely and the TSE model may prove useful.
Albaek, E. ( 1995). Between knowledge and power-Utilization of social-science in public-policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 79-100.
2.
Anthony, R.N., & Govindarajan, V. (2001). Management control systems . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International .
3.
Bickman, L. ( 1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New directions for program evaluation (Series no.33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
4.
Birckmayer, J.D., & Weiss, C.H. ( 2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice-What do we learn ? Evaluation Review, 24, 407-431.
5.
Bledsoe, K.L., & Graham, J.A. ( 2005). The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 302-319.
6.
Chen, H.T. ( 1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
7.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005a). Practical program evaluation. Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005b). Program theory. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 340-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005c). Theory-driven evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 415-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
Dahler-Larsen, P. ( 2001). From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7, 331-349.
11.
Davidson, D. ( 2006). Radical interpretation. In D. Davidson (Ed.), The essential Davidson (pp. 184-195). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12.
Donaldson, S.I. ( 2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. ( 2006). New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467-494.
Friedman, V.J. ( 2001). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation , 22, 161-181.
16.
Galtung, J., & Naess, A. ( 1955). Gandhis politiske etikk. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
17.
Hanberger, A., & Schild, I. ( 2004). Strategies to evaluate a university-industry knowledge-exchange programme. Evaluation, 10, 475-492.
18.
Hansen, M.B., & Vedung, E. ( 2005). Fælles sprog i ældreplejens organisering. Evaluering af et standardiseret kategorisystem [Common Language in the organization of elder care. Evaluation of a standardized classification system]. Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
19.
Hoogerwerf, A. ( 1990). Reconstructing policy theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 285-291.
20.
Leeuw, F.L. ( 1991). Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation . Knowledge and Policy, 4, 73-92.
21.
Leeuw, F.L. ( 2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 5-20.
22.
Majone, G. ( 1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
McLaughlin, J.A., & Jordan, G.B. ( 1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
24.
Molas-Gallart, J., & Davies, A. ( 2006). Toward theory-led evaluation-The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 64-82.
25.
Popper, K.R. ( 1985). The rationality principle. In D. Miller (Ed.), Popper selections (pp. 357-365). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Quine, W.V. ( 1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Rogers, P.J. ( 2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 63-67.
Sidani, S., & Sechrest, L. ( 1999). Putting program theory into operation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 227-238.
31.
Stame, N. ( 2004). Theory-based evaluation and varieties of complexity. Evaluation, 10, 58-76.
32.
Suchman, E.A. ( 1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
33.
Swiss, J.E. ( 1991). Public management systems: Monitoring and managing government performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Turnbull, B. ( 2002). Program theory building: A strategy for deriving cumulative evaluation knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 275-290.
35.
Vaessen, J. ( 2006). Programme theory evaluation, multicriteria decision aid and stakeholder values: a methodological framework. Evaluation , 12, 397-417.
36.
Valovirta, V. ( 2002). Evaluation utilization as argumentation. Evaluation, 8, 60-80.
37.
Vedung, E. ( 1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
38.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway ? Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
39.
Weiss, C.H. ( 2007). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 68-81.
40.
Worthen, B.R. ( 1996). The origins of theory-based evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17, 169-172.
