Krane, Dale
Disorderly progress on the frontiers of policy evaluation - New York : Marcel Dekker, 2001
Cantankerous conflicts and debilitanting debates characterize the disoderly development of policy evaluation. The clashes over methods, paradigms, and purposes have been so severe that no approach or idea has avoided criticism. This article reviews the turbulent history of evaluation from its multiple roots to its acceptance as an essential tool of contemporary public management. Next, the article examines the war between contructivists and positivists over methodology as well as the puzzling games played in the search for consensus over the purpose(s) of evaluation. The article concludes with a discussion of the future of policy evaluation from the perspective of democratic public managment. Several vital issues glossed over by the previus debates are identified. The article ends with an appeal for evaluators to devote less time to methodological and paradigmatic infighting and more time to the soluction of these other problems more directly related to the administration and improvment of public programs
Disorderly progress on the frontiers of policy evaluation - New York : Marcel Dekker, 2001
Cantankerous conflicts and debilitanting debates characterize the disoderly development of policy evaluation. The clashes over methods, paradigms, and purposes have been so severe that no approach or idea has avoided criticism. This article reviews the turbulent history of evaluation from its multiple roots to its acceptance as an essential tool of contemporary public management. Next, the article examines the war between contructivists and positivists over methodology as well as the puzzling games played in the search for consensus over the purpose(s) of evaluation. The article concludes with a discussion of the future of policy evaluation from the perspective of democratic public managment. Several vital issues glossed over by the previus debates are identified. The article ends with an appeal for evaluators to devote less time to methodological and paradigmatic infighting and more time to the soluction of these other problems more directly related to the administration and improvment of public programs
