Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ho, S. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evaluating Urban Regeneration Programmes in Britain

Exploring the Potential of the Realist Approach

Suet Ying Ho

Leeds Metropolitan University

Since the mid-1980s, the British government has put more emphasis on monitoring and evaluation of existing and new policy initiatives. There is, however, little evidence to show that new regeneration initiatives have been formulated based on lessons learned from previous evaluation studies. The government's approach to evaluation of regeneration initiatives focuses on value for money and thus limits the scope and relevance of evaluation. I argue that there is a need to revisit the limitations of the current approach and to explore other approaches. This article aims to explore the potential of the realist approach in its application to the evaluation of regeneration programmes in Britain. A framework is proposed for constructing the Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration put forward by Pawson and Tilley (1997). Several issues are raised for further debate. The purpose of the debate is to explore further refinements of the realist approach and to consider some of the possible problems in the research design.

Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 4, 422-438 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/135638999400830084


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
H Thomson
A dose of realism for healthy urban policy: lessons from area-based initiatives in the UK
J Epidemiol Community Health, October 1, 2008; 62(10): 932 - 936.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
P. Davis
The Limits of Realist Evaluation: Surfacing and Exploring Assumptions in Assessing the Best Value Performance Regime
Evaluation, July 1, 2005; 11(3): 275 - 295.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
J. Owen, T. Cook, and E. Jones
Evaluating the Early Excellence Initiative: The Relationship between Evaluation, Performance Management and Practitioner Participation
Evaluation, July 1, 2005; 11(3): 331 - 349.
[Abstract] [PDF]