Suchergebnisse

While traditional legal scholarship is under pressure and debates are taking place on the aims and methods of the academic study of law, at the same time empirical legal research is blossoming if not booming. The more empirical legal research is a growth industry, the more important it is to understand and discuss epistemological, methodological and translational problems of this field of study. This paper focuses on problems of a translational character, i.e. how to bring empirical evidence to the fore, in such a way that it can be understood and used by lawyers, legislators and regulators. And how to deal with the gap between facts ('evidence') and values, also known as the fact-value dichotomy. Our perspective is what students of law, including PhD candidates and legal practitioners (in training), need to know about this problem and how to address it. The paper summarizes several approaches to this gap problem, based on Giesen (2015) and continues with a critical analysis of his due process approach. Our analysis is that the gap problem continues to exist despite Giesen's suggestions. Therefore four other approaches are put forward, two from the field of evaluation studies, one from argumentational analysis and one from empirically informed ethics. Finally, the paper discusses the relevance of these approaches for the legal curriculum.

While traditional legal scholarship is under pressure and debates are taking place on the aims and methods of the academic study of law, at the same time empirical legal research is blossoming if not booming. The more empirical legal research is a growth industry, the more important it is to understand and discuss epistemological, methodological and translational problems of this field of study. This paper focuses on problems of a translational character, i.e. how to bring empirical evidence to the fore, in such a way that it can be understood and used by lawyers, legislators and regulators. And how to deal with the gap between facts ('evidence') and values, also known as the fact-value dichotomy. Our perspective is what students of law, including PhD candidates and legal practitioners (in training), need to know about this problem and how to address it. The paper summarizes several approaches to this gap problem, based on Giesen (2015) and continues with a critical analysis of his due process approach. Our analysis is that the gap problem continues to exist despite Giesen's suggestions. Therefore four other approaches are put forward, two from the field of evaluation studies, one from argumentational analysis and one from empirically informed ethics. Finally, the paper discusses the relevance of these approaches for the legal curriculum.

Contribution analysis and theory-based evaluation are linked. This article discusses the contributions of several (recent) developments to further deepen the links between theory-based evaluation and contribution analysis. This will be done by describing how three well-known (and almost classical) problematic situations for impact evaluations can be addressed through the application of insights and tools from theory-based evaluation.

AbstractThis chapter discusses the development of evaluation policy in the Netherlands. It distinguishes between several periods: the 1970s and before, when there was little or no evaluation, much less evaluation policy; the late 1970s and 1980s, when evaluation increased but there was still little formal policy; the 1990s, when the government began to establish its formal evaluation policy; and the current decade, when evaluation policy was further formalized and evaluation activities blossomed. The author shows that the Dutch policy has always been rather liberal, leaving much room to the community of professionals. The chapter concludes with a summary of the current state of evaluation policy in the Netherlands, showing that the critique on evaluations and the two other strands of activities that produce "evaluative feedback" (i.e., performance auditing and inspection/oversight) is increasing. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Evaluation, monitoring, inspection and performance auditing have become a booming business. The numbers of professional societies have strongly increased and there are so many studies that authors recently referred to them as 'streams' and 'fleets'. Evaluation has also been called a 'positive social epidemic'. This article reveals that the booming business not only has positive consequences and 'added value', but also unwanted downsides. 'Evaluation machines', 'death by evaluation', 'evaluitis' and the 'performance paradox' are examples. This article presents three possible explanations for the situation in which a booming business goes hand in hand with the beginnings of diminishing returns of evaluation for society. The first explanation is that evaluations are becoming part of management support systems that produce information that often only reinforces management decisions. The second looks into the unintended and negative consequences of 'paradigm wars'. And the third suggestion deals with the limited explanatory power of evaluations.

AbstractThis chapter describes differences and similarities between auditing and evaluation and their respective contributions to performance improvement.

US sociology and evaluation : issues in the relationship between methodology and theory / Nicoletta Stame -- Evaluation and the disciplines in development / Robert Picciotto -- Economics and evaluation / Sandra Speer -- The intellectual underpinnings of a comprehensive body of evaluative knowledge : the case of INTEVAL / Lisa Birch and Steve Jacob -- Public management theory, evaluation, and evidence-based policy / Robert Schwartz -- Interventions as theories : closing the gap between evaluation and the disciplines? / Jos Vaessen and Frans L. Leeuw -- Middle range theory and program theory evaluation : from provenance to practice / Ray Pawson -- Realistic evaluation and disciplinary knowledge : applications from the field of criminology / Nick Tilley.

"Mind the Gap has a twofold aim. The first is to highlight and characterize the gap between evaluation practices and debates, and the substantive knowledge debates within the social and behavioral sciences. The second is to show why this gap is problematic for the practice of evaluation, while at the same time illustrating possible ways to build bridges. The book is centered on the value of producing useful evaluation grounded in social science theory and research."--Jacket.