Programme Evaluation Theory: The Next Step Toward a Synthesis of Logic Models and Organizational Theory
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper argues that the formulation of policy, at whatever level, to whatever scale or scope, is any different to the myriad of processes involved in strategic planning within and between organisations, and the attendant decision making processes that abound in such an environment (Hage, 1980; Hickson, 1987; Thompson, 1967; Weick, 1976). Those forces that impact upon organisations are precisely the same forces that impact upon policy making groups who are themselves ‘organisations’ (or institutions), whether actual or representative. This provides a startign point for considering a synthesis between various models or paradigms. The argument continues, that program theory and the program logic model can incorporate and synthesise theories from elsewhere that, in turn, usefully inform and develop programme theory and program logic. A ‘hierarchical’ model is presented to explore the linkages between the components and ‘simple’ processes of theory, programme theory, logic modelling, organisational functioning, policy, and the consequent impact. It is hoped that this model can be used as a framework to: (a) determine which components are essential to give the policy external validity, credibility, implementability, and so on; and (b) provide a common point of reference for policy makers, stakeholders, and evaluators.
Downloads
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Albert, K. J. (1980). Handbook of business problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organisations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: At Theory for action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bettman, J. R., & Weitz, B. A. (1983). Attributions in the board room: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 165-183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392616
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392616
Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. New directions for program evaluation, 33, 5-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1443
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1443
Bickman, L. (2000). Summing up program theory. New directions for evaluation, 87. 103- 113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1186
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1186
Blau, P. M. (1974). On the nature of organisations. New York: John Wiley.
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of non-profit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12303
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12303
Chelimsky, E. (1995). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. Evaluation Practice, 16(3), 215-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-1633(95)90035-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-1633(95)90035-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-1633(95)90035-7
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluation. Thousand Oaks: CA. Sage.
Davidson, E. J. (2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 87. 103-113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1186
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1178
Geva-May, I., & Pal, L. A. (1999). Good Fences Make Good Neighbours. Evaluation, 5(3), 259-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13563899922208986
https://doi.org/10.1177/13563899922208986 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13563899922208986
General Accounting Office (GAO). (1990). Prospective evaluation methods (GAO/PEMD- 10.1.10). Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organisations. New York: John Wiley.
Hall, R. H. (2002). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Prentice Hall, US: New Jersey.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organisations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/226424
https://doi.org/10.1086/226424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/226424
Hickson, D. J. (1987). Decision making at the top of organisation. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 165-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.13.1.165
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001121
Julian, D. A. (2001). A case study of the implementation of outcomes-based funding within a local United Way System: Some implications for practicing community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(6), 851-874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012963415118
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012963415118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012963415118
King, T (1981). Problem solving in a project environment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kleindorfer, P., Kunreuther, H. C., & Shoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Decision sciences: An integrative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173537
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173537
Lake, K. E., Reis, T. K., & Spann, J. (2000). From grant making to change making: How the W. K. Kellogg Foundations Impact Services Model evolved to enhance the management and social effects of large initiatives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1) 41-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S003
Leeuw, F. L. (1991). Policy theories, knowledge utilisation, and evaluation. Knowledge and Policy, 4(1). 73-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693089
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693089
Leeuw, F. L. (2002-submitted). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). A vision of evaluation that strengthens democracy. Evaluation, 8(1), 125-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001740
https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001740
Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: In search of a method. Evaluation, 8(2), 157- 181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008002512
https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008002512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008002512
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Plantz, M. C., Greenway, M. T., and Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome Measurement: Showing Results in the Nonprofit Sector. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 75, 15-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1077
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1077
Poole, L. P., Davis, J. K., Reisman, J., & Nelson, J. E. (2001). Improving the quality of outcome evaluation plans. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(4), 405-422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11402
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11402
Ranson, S., Hinnings, B., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The sStructuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392223
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392223
Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1177
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1177
Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). CA: Sage.
Schoennauer, A. W. (1981). Problem finding and problem-solving. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Sage.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
https://doi.org/10.1086/229967 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
United Way of America, (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. VA.
Van der Knaap, P. (1995). Policy, evaluation and learning. Evaluation, 1(2), 189-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909500100205
https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909500100205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909500100205
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: MA. Addison-Wesley.