2009
DOI: 10.1177/1098214009354918
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contemporary Thinking About Causation in Evaluation: A Dialogue With Tom Cook and Michael Scriven

Abstract: Legitimate knowledge claims about causation have been a central concern among evaluators and applied researchers for several decades and often have been the subject of heated debates. In recent years these debates have resurfaced with a renewed intensity, due in part to the priority currently being given to randomized experiments by many funders of evaluation studies, such as the Institute for Educational Sciences. In this dialogue, which took place at Western Michigan University in October 2008, two of the fi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
5

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
27
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…In relation to the 'what', a core distinction is often made (for example Bennett 2003) between the 'classical' evaluation tradition deriving from the work of Tyler (1942) with its emphasis on specification and measurement of outputs from later approaches which present much wider perspectives such as Stufflebeam's (1983) CIPP (context-input-process-product) and Cronbach's (1982) utos (units of focus, treatments, observations/outcomes, settings) frameworks. In terms of 'how', discussion traditionally draws on wider discussions of methodology to contrast quantitative approaches, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Campbell 1975, Cook, et al, 2010 with approaches that seek to explore the subject of the evaluation using more qualitative methods such as thick description and case study (Parlett andHamilton 1976, Stake 1986) or approaches that draw on the traditions of connoisseurship and criticism (Eisner 1985). Finally, in terms of 'who' should participate in evaluation and determine its outcomes, the history of evaluation exhibits a wide range of perspectives from those which give the key role to the evaluators themselves (Scriven 1976), through those who focus on the importance of commissioners and managers (Stufflebeam 1983) to those who seek to engage a wider range of stakeholders (Patton 1997;Guba and Lincoln 1989), including some who place a particular emphasis on the participative processes (Cousins andEarl 1995, Torres andPreskill 2001) or on the engagement of the disempowered (House 1991, Fetterman 1996.…”
Section: Approaches To Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In relation to the 'what', a core distinction is often made (for example Bennett 2003) between the 'classical' evaluation tradition deriving from the work of Tyler (1942) with its emphasis on specification and measurement of outputs from later approaches which present much wider perspectives such as Stufflebeam's (1983) CIPP (context-input-process-product) and Cronbach's (1982) utos (units of focus, treatments, observations/outcomes, settings) frameworks. In terms of 'how', discussion traditionally draws on wider discussions of methodology to contrast quantitative approaches, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Campbell 1975, Cook, et al, 2010 with approaches that seek to explore the subject of the evaluation using more qualitative methods such as thick description and case study (Parlett andHamilton 1976, Stake 1986) or approaches that draw on the traditions of connoisseurship and criticism (Eisner 1985). Finally, in terms of 'who' should participate in evaluation and determine its outcomes, the history of evaluation exhibits a wide range of perspectives from those which give the key role to the evaluators themselves (Scriven 1976), through those who focus on the importance of commissioners and managers (Stufflebeam 1983) to those who seek to engage a wider range of stakeholders (Patton 1997;Guba and Lincoln 1989), including some who place a particular emphasis on the participative processes (Cousins andEarl 1995, Torres andPreskill 2001) or on the engagement of the disempowered (House 1991, Fetterman 1996.…”
Section: Approaches To Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…transferts monétaires conditionnels). En revanche, l'évaluation des actions de conservation, dont la certification, demeure un domaine de recherche controversé (Cook et al 2010) et accuse un certain retard malgré la multiplication récente des publications sur le sujet (voir plus loin dans cette partie). Les évaluations ont pour but de comprendre les systèmes et processus par le développement de connaissances situées au carrefour de la recherche, de la politique publique et de la pratique.…”
Section: Les Antécédents De L'évaluation Des Actions De Conservationunclassified
“…In contrast, evaluation of conservation interventions, including certification, remains a contested field of enquiry (Cook et al 2010) and lags behind despite a recent flurry of publications (see later in this section). Evaluations seek to understand systems and processes through the generation of knowledge situated between research, policy and practice.…”
Section: Background On the Evaluation Of Conservation Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%