IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v6y1986i2p222-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation Research And Political Science: An Argument Against The Division Of Scholarly Labor

Author

Listed:
  • Anne L. Schneider

Abstract

Political science might have been the birthplace of evaluation research, but it has instead been unreceptive to it for a number of reasons. Hofferbert's suggestion that political scientists become involved by studying the impact of policy on democratic processes does not take into account the ferment that has been taking place in the field of evaluation. Political scientists should not conduct evaluation studies using the same methodology they normally use because these may not produce the kind of information needed for improving policies or programs. A disciplinary division of labor is impractical for a number of reasons. Instead, they should use a policy sciences framework, which contains normative elements and focuses on potentials for change, among other things.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne L. Schneider, 1986. "Evaluation Research And Political Science: An Argument Against The Division Of Scholarly Labor," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 6(2), pages 222-232, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:6:y:1986:i:2:p:222-232
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00688.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00688.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00688.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:6:y:1986:i:2:p:222-232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.