IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v11y1987i6p765-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective and Objective Methods of Evaluating Social Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Farrokh Alemi

    (Tulane University)

Abstract

A practical problem in evaluation studies with limited resources is that all methodologies cannot be tried. Thus the evaluator must decide what questions must be answered and then choose which method would best provide the answers. The choice, however, is not simple. It involves several different trade-offs. These trade-offs are articulated through a discussion of the differences between (a) Bayesian and traditional statistics, (b) decision and cost benefit analysis, and (c) anthropological and traditional case studies. The intent of the article is to make evaluators sensitive to the implicit trade-offs associated with choosing a subjective or an objective method.

Suggested Citation

  • Farrokh Alemi, 1987. "Subjective and Objective Methods of Evaluating Social Programs," Evaluation Review, , vol. 11(6), pages 765-774, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:11:y:1987:i:6:p:765-774
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8701100605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8701100605
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8701100605?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George P. Huber, 1974. "Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(10), pages 1393-1402, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1978. "Scoring methods, multiple criteria, and utility analysis," Research Memorandum FEW 76, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Dillon, John L. & Perry, Chad, 1977. "Multiattribute Utility Theory, Multiple Objectives And Uncertainty In Ex Ante Project Evaluation," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(01-2), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    4. Mofidi, Seyed Shahab & Pazour, Jennifer A., 2019. "When is it beneficial to provide freelance suppliers with choice? A hierarchical approach for peer-to-peer logistics platforms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-23.
    5. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    6. Souhir Ben Salah & Wafa Ben Yahia & Omar Ayadi & Faouzi Masmoudi, 2020. "A Bilateral Multi-Attribute Negotiation-Based Approach for a VE Configuration," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 923-947, October.
    7. Yicheng Song & Nachiketa Sahoo & Elie Ofek, 2019. "When and How to Diversify—A Multicategory Utility Model for Personalized Content Recommendation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3737-3757, August.
    8. Hu, Kejia & Tan, Qian & Zhang, Tianyuan & Wang, Shuping, 2020. "Assessing technology portfolios of clean energy-driven desalination-irrigation systems with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    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:sae:evarev:v:11:y:1987:i:6:p:765-774. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.