This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dahler-Larsen, P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

From Programme Theory to Constructivism

On Tragic, Magic and Competing Programmes

University of Southern Denmark

Theory-based evaluation utilizes terms such as ‘moderators’ and ‘CMO configurations’ to describe how the validity of a programme theory depends on the context in which it operates. From a constructivist perspective, however, contexts are influenced by ongoing social (re)construction. The truth value of a programme theory is contingent upon this construction. This helps explain why tests of programme theories provided by theory-based evaluators are often unconvincing to programme advocates. A typology of ‘magic’, ‘tragic’ and ‘competing’ programmes, each of which influence their contexts in different ways, is described and the implications for evaluation discussed.

Key Words: causality • constructivism • context • moderators • programme theory

Evaluation, Vol. 7, No. 3, 331-349 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/13563890122209711


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. H. Pedersen and O. Rieper Is Realist Evaluation a Realistic Approach for Complex Reforms? Evaluation, July 1, 2008; 14(3): 271 - 293. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Uusikyla and V. Valovirta Three Spheres of Performance Governance: Spanning the Boundaries from Single-Organization Focus towards a Partnership Network Evaluation, October 1, 2007; 13(4): 399 - 419. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Blamey and M. Mackenzie Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges? Evaluation, October 1, 2007; 13(4): 439 - 455. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Lion, P. Martini, and S. Volpi Evaluating the Implementation Process: A Contribution within the Framework of the European Social Fund (ESF) Programme Evaluation, July 1, 2006; 12(3): 313 - 329. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Bezzi Evaluation Pragmatics Evaluation, January 1, 2006; 12(1): 56 - 76. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				P. Kautto and J. Simila Recently Introduced Policy Instruments and Intervention Theories Evaluation, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 55 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Hills, S. Carroll, and M. O'Neill Vers un modele d'evaluation de l'efficacite des interventions communautaires en promotion de la sante : compte-rendu de quelques developpements Nord-americains recents1 Global Health Promotion, March 1, 2004; 11(1_suppl): 17 - 21. [PDF]

				H. Alexander Health-Service Evaluations: Should We Expect the Results to Change Practice? Evaluation, October 1, 2003; 9(4): 405 - 414. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Barnes, E. Matka, and H. Sullivan Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems Evaluation, July 1, 2003; 9(3): 265 - 284. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Hellstrom and M. Jacob Knowledge without Goals? Evaluation of Knowledge Management Programmes Evaluation, January 1, 2003; 9(1): 55 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]