Research Article

You have free access to this content

Managing valuation

  1. George Julnes

Article first published online: 9 MAR 2012

DOI: 10.1002/ev.20002

Issue

New Directions for Evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Special Issue: Promoting Valuation in the Public Interest: Informing Policies for Judging Value in Evaluation

Volume 2012, Issue 133, pages 3–15, Spring 2012

Additional Information

How to Cite

Julnes, G. (2012), Managing valuation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012: 3–15. doi: 10.1002/ev.20002

Author Information

  1. Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Baltimore

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 9 MAR 2012
  2. Article first published online: 9 MAR 2012

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (77K)

References

  • Adler, M. D., & Posner, E. A. (Eds.). (2000). Cost-benefit analysis: Legal, economic, and philosophical perspectives. Chicago, IL: Chicago.
  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Alternative approaches to the theory of choice in risk-taking situations. Econometrica, 19(4), 404–437.
  • Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Berlin, I. (1998). The crooked timber of humanity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Cullen, A. E., Coryn, L. S., & Rugh, J. (2011). The politics and consequences of including stakeholders in international development evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 345–361.
  • Edwards, W., & Newman, J. R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: A distinction between general and working logic. In D. M. Fournier (Ed.), Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps. New Directions for Evaluation, 68, 15–32.
  • Gramlich, E. M. (1990). Benefit–cost analysis for government programs (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530–544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Henry, G., & Julnes, G. (1998). Values and realist valuation. In G. Henry, G. Julnes, & M. Mark (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 78, 53–72.
  • House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Hurley, S. L. (1989). Natural reasons: Personality and polity. Oxford, England: Oxford.
  • Julnes, G. (1996, November). Establishing value claims in a critical realist world. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, GA.
  • Julnes, G. (2010). Using research into valuing to enhance the value of rational initiatives to improve performance. In T. Brandsen & M. Holzer (Eds.), The future of governance: Selected papers from the fifth trans-Atlantic dialogue. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance.
  • Julnes, G., & Rog, D. J. (2007). Pragmatic support for policies on methodology. In G. Julnes & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 129–147.
  • Julnes, G., & Rog, D. J. (2008). Evaluation methods for producing actionable evidence: Contextual influences on adequacy and appropriateness of method choice. In S. I. Donaldson, C. A. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 96–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kirkhart, K., LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2011, April). Improving Indian education through indigenous evaluation. Paper presented at the annual American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Labaree, L. W., & Bell, W. J. (Eds.). (1956). Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Mitchell, R. C. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  • Morris, M., & Jacobs, L. R. (2000). You got a problem with that?: Exploring evaluators' disagreements about ethics. Evaluation Review, 24, 384–406.
  • Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
  • Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 58.
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Stake, R. E., et al. (1997). The evolving syntheses of program value. Evaluation Practice, 18, 89–109.
  • Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, 89.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Cognition and cost–benefit analysis. In M. D. Adler & E. A. Posner (Eds.), Cost–benefit analysis: Legal, economic, and philosophical perspectives (pp. 223–267). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Wilson, T., & Schooler, J. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 191–192.
Get PDF (77K)