IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v45y2014icp127-139.html

Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate

Author

Listed:
  • Urban, Jennifer Brown
  • Hargraves, Monica
  • Trochim, William M.

Abstract

Evolutionary theory, developmental systems theory, and evolutionary epistemology provide deep theoretical foundations for understanding programs, their development over time, and the role of evaluation. This paper relates core concepts from these powerful bodies of theory to program evaluation. Evolutionary Evaluation is operationalized in terms of program and evaluation evolutionary phases, which are in turn aligned with multiple types of validity. The model of Evolutionary Evaluation incorporates Chen's conceptualization of bottom-up versus top-down program development. The resulting framework has important implications for many program management and evaluation issues. The paper illustrates how an Evolutionary Evaluation perspective can illuminate important controversies in evaluation using the example of the appropriate role of randomized controlled trials that encourages a rethinking of “evidence-based programs”. From an Evolutionary Evaluation perspective, prevailing interpretations of rigor and mandates for evidence-based programs pose significant challenges to program evolution. This perspective also illuminates the consequences of misalignment between program and evaluation phases; the importance of supporting both researcher-derived and practitioner-derived programs; and the need for variation and evolutionary phase diversity within portfolios of programs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:127-139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718914000378
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.011?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. Caracelli, Valerie J., 1989. "Structured conceptualization : A framework for interpreting evaluation results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 45-52, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Trochim, William M. K. & Linton, Rhoda, 1986. "Conceptualization for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 289-308, January.
    4. Chen, Huey T., 2010. "The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: A new perspective for program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 205-214, August.
    5. Sandra Nutley & Huw T. O. Davies, 2000. "Getting Research into Practice: Making a Reality of Evidence-Based Practice: Some Lessons from the Diffusion of Innovations," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 35-42, October.
    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. Anzoise, Valentina & Sardo, Stefania, 2016. "Dynamic systems and the role of evaluation: The case of the Green Communities project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 162-172.
    2. Ferreira, António & Oliveira, Fernanda Paula & von Schönfeld, Kim Carlotta, 2022. "Planning cities beyond digital colonization? Insights from the periphery," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Sambou, Césarine & Decroix, Charlotte & Martin-Fernandez, Judith & Cambon, Linda & Alla, François, 2025. "Uses of the viable validity concept: A systematic scoping review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    4. Trochim, William M., 2017. "Hindsight is 20/20: Reflections on the evolution of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 176-185.
    5. Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld & António Ferreira, 2021. "Urban Planning and European Innovation Policy: Achieving Sustainability, Social Inclusion, and Economic Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-35, January.
    6. Riches, Brian R. & Benavides, Celina M. & Dubon, Valeska X., 2020. "Development of a fostering purpose intervention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Archibald, Thomas, 2015. "“They Just Know”: The epistemological politics of “evidence-based” non-formal education," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 137-148.

    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. 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.
    2. Trochim, William M., 2017. "Hindsight is 20/20: Reflections on the evolution of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 176-185.
    3. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    4. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    5. Rosas, Scott R. & Ridings, John W., 2017. "The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 265-276.
    6. Erin Lebow-Skelley & Sarah Yelton & Brandi Janssen & Esther Erdei & Melanie A. Pearson, 2020. "Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Donnelly, James P., 2017. "A systematic review of concept mapping dissertations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 186-193.
    8. Trochim, William M. & McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "Introduction to a special issue on concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 166-175.
    9. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    10. C. Pons-Morera & L. Canós-Darós & I. Gil-Pechuan, 2018. "A model of collaborative innovation between local government and tourism operators," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(1), pages 143-168, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Cerezo, M. Angeles & Dasi, Carmen & Ruiz, Juan Carlos, 2013. "Supporting parenting of infants: Evaluating outcomes for parents and children in a community-based program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 12-20.
    17. 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.
    18. David, Paula & Schiff, Miriam, 2015. "Learning from bottom-up dissemination: Importing an evidence-based trauma intervention for infants and young children to Israel," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 18-24.
    19. 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.
    20. Reavley, Nicola & Livingston, Jenni & Buchbinder, Rachelle & Bennell, Kim & Stecki, Chris & Osborne, Richard Harry, 2010. "A systematic grounded approach to the development of complex interventions: The Australian WorkHealth Program - Arthritis as a case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 342-350, February.

    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:45:y:2014:i:c:p:127-139. 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.