IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v36y2013i1p64-70.html

Evaluation utilization research—Developing a theory and putting it to use

Author

Listed:
  • Neuman, Ari
  • Shahor, Neria
  • Shina, Ilan
  • Sarid, Anat
  • Saar, Zehava

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a two-stage study that had two key objectives: to develop a theory about evaluation utilization in an educational organization and to apply this theory to promote evaluation utilization within the organization. The first stage involved a theoretical conceptualization using a participatory method of concept mapping. This process identified the modes of evaluation utilization within the organization, produced a representation of the relationship between them and led to a theory. The second stage examined the practical implications of this conceptualization in terms of how different stakeholders in the organization perceive the actual and preferable state of evaluation utilization within the organization (i.e. to what extent is evaluation utilized and to what extent should it be utilized). The participatory process of the study promoted the evaluation utilization by involving stakeholders, thus giving them a sense of ownership and improving communication between the evaluation unit and the stakeholders. In addition, understanding the evaluation needs of the stakeholders in the organization helped generate relevant and realizable evaluation processes. On a practical level, the results are currently shaping the evaluation plan and the place of evaluations within the organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Neuman, Ari & Shahor, Neria & Shina, Ilan & Sarid, Anat & Saar, Zehava, 2013. "Evaluation utilization research—Developing a theory and putting it to use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 64-70.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:64-70
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718912000614
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.06.001?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Greene, Jennifer C., 1988. "Communication of results and utilization in participatory program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 341-351, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brown, Jason D. & Anderson, Landy & Rodgers, Julie, 2014. "Needs of foster parent resource workers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 120-127.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    2. Karen E. Kirkhart & Robert O. Morgan & Joan Sincavage, 1991. "Assessing Evaluation Performance and Use," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(4), pages 482-502, August.
    3. Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    4. Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla & Mahdi Mohammed Alamri, 2021. "Using Conceptual Mapping for Learning to Affect Students’ Motivation and Academic Achievement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Panagiotis Koudoumakis & George Botzoris & Angelos Protopapas, 2022. "Cohesion policy evaluation: Guidelines for selection of appropriate methods," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1062-1084, October.
    6. Caroline Schlinkert & Marleen Gillebaart & Jeroen Benjamins & Maartje P. Poelman & Denise de Ridder, 2020. "Snacks and The City: Unexpected Low Sales of an Easy-Access, Tasty, and Healthy Snack at an Urban Snacking Hotspot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Gausman, Jewel & Lloyd, Danielle & Kallon, Thomas & Subramanian, S.V. & Langer, Ana & Austin, S. Bryn, 2019. "Clustered risk: An ecological understanding of sexual activity among adolescent boys and girls in two urban slums in Monrovia, Liberia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 106-115.
    8. Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera & Enrique Bigne & Joaquín Aldas-Manzano & Rafael Curras-Perez, 2017. "A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Following the Sustainable Development Paradigm," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 243-262, January.
    9. Dare, Lynn & Nowicki, Elizabeth, 2019. "Engaging children and youth in research and evaluation using group concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Maria Cerretta & Lidia Diappi, 2014. "Adaptive Evaluations in Complex Contexts: Introduction," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 5-22.
    11. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Kane, Mary, 2014. "Concept mapping and network analysis: An analytic approach to measure ties among constructs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 9-17.
    12. Sutherland, Stephanie & Katz, Steven, 2005. "Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational learning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 257-269, August.
    13. Urban, Jennifer Brown & Hargraves, Monica & Trochim, William M., 2014. "Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 127-139.
    14. Sofia Patsali, 2019. "Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence," Working Papers of BETA 2019-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    16. Menconi, M.E. & Tasso, S. & Santinelli, M. & Grohmann, D., 2020. "A card game to renew urban parks: Face-to-face and online approach for the inclusive involvement of local community," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    17. Luis Miranda-Gumucio & Ignacio Gil-Pechuán & Daniel Palacios-Marqués, 2013. "An exploratory study of the determinants of switching and loyalty in prepaid cell phone users. An application of concept mapping," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 7(4), pages 603-622, December.
    18. Shern, David L. & Trochim, William M. K. & LaComb, Christina A., 1995. "The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 143-153.
    19. Van Holen, Frank & Van Loock, Julie & Belenger, Laurence & Vanderfaeillie, Johan, 2017. "Concept mapping the needs of grandmothers who take care of their grandchildren in formal foster care in Flanders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 159-167.
    20. Rosas, Scott R. & Camphausen, Lauren C., 2007. "The use of concept mapping for scale development and validation in evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 125-135, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:64-70. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    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.