Abstract
Quasi-experimental evaluation methods promised to provide a way of testing and improving solutions to social problems. These methods have been found wanting. Alternative approaches, including “pragmatic evaluation,” “naturalistic evaluation,” and “pluralist evaluation” are also shown to be unsatisfactory. The initial promise of the evaluation movement has been disappointed. Realistic evaluation is advocated as an alternative to existing forms of evaluation. It is rooted in some European traditions in epistemology, ontology, and social theory. It offers a framework within which rigorous outcome evaluations can be undertaken with results that can inform policy and practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bhaskar, R. (1975).A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvester.
———. (1979).The possibility of naturalism. Brighton: Harvester.
Campbell, D. (1969). Reforms as experiments.American Psychologist, 24:409–429.
Chen, H. (1990).Theory-driven evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chen, H. and Rossi, P. (1983). Evaluating with Sense: The Theory-driven approach.Evaluation Review, 7:283–302.
Costner, H. (1991). Review of Chen, H. (1990).Contemporary Sociology, 20:92–94.
Cronbach, L. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation.Teachers College Record, 64:672–683.
———. (1982).Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foster, J. and Hope, T. (1993).Housing, community and crime: The impact of the priority estates project. London: HMSO.
Gendreau, P. and Ross, R. (1987). The revivication of rehabilitation.Justice Quarterly, 4:349–408.
Giddens, A. (1984).The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
Guba Y. & Lincoln, E. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
Harré, R. (1972).The philosophies of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. (1978).Social being. Oxford: Blackwell.
———. (1986).Varieties of realism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hesse, M. (1974).The structure of scientific inference. London: Macmillan.
Keat, R. and Urry, J. (1975).Social theory as science. London: Routledge.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds.),Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laycock, G. (1992). Operation identification, or the power of publicity in Clarke, R. (Ed.)Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. New York: Harrow and Heston.
Layder, D. (1990).The realist image in social science. London: Macmillan.
———. (1993).New strategies in social research. Cambridge: Polity.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R, and Wilks, J. (1975).The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.Public Interest, 35:22–45.
———. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform.Hofstra Law Review, 7(2), 243–258.
Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, (July), pp. 133–152.
Patton, M. (1982).Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
Pawson, R. (1989).A measure for measures: A manifesto for an empirical sociology. London: Routledge.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1992). Reevaluation: Rethinking research on corrections and crime.Yearbook of Correctional Education, pp. 19–49.
———. (1994). What works in evaluation research?British Journal of Criminology, 34, 3:291–306.
---. (in preparation). Realistic evaluation.
Popper, K. (1957).The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.
Ross, R. and Gendreau, P. (1980).Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths.
Rossi P. and Freeman, H. (1985).Evaluation: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sayer, A. (1984).Method in social sience. London: Hutchinson.
Shadish, W.R. et al. (1991).Foundations of program evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stufflebeam, D. (1980). An interview with Daniel L. Stufflebeam.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(4).
Tilley, N. (1993). Understanding car parks, crime and CCTV. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 42, London: Home Office.
———. (1994). After Kirkholt: Theory, method and results of replication evaluations. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 47, London: Home Office.
Tilley, N. and Webb, J. (1994). Burglary reduction: Findings from safer cities schemes. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 51, London: Home Office.
Weiss, C. & Bucuvelas, M. (1980).Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
He is president of the Research Committee on Methodology of the International Sociological Association.
He is seconded part-time to the Home Office Police Research Group as a research consultant.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the founding conference of the European Evaluation Society, The Hague, 1–2 December, 1994.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pawson, R., Tilley, N. Whither (European) evaluation methodology?. Knowledge and Policy 8, 20–33 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904928
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904928