IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v38y2013icp81-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?

Author

Listed:
  • Gargani, John

Abstract

In response to previous papers in this issue, I consider the ways that logic models of evaluation theories may improve practice. Our conceptions of how theory informs practice are colored by who we have in mind when we speak of practitioners and theorists. I offer working definitions of these roles. It is also colored by the process we imagine connects theory to practice. I present a theory-based explanation of the factors that may shape practice and describe how theorists, using logic models, may be able to exploit these factors to promote the use of their theories. Throughout, I argue that theorists are primarily responsible for the proper use of their theories just as evaluators are primarily responsible for the proper use of their evaluations. This responsibility is best fulfilled in collaboration with the larger community of evaluators. Recent methods and software allow theorists to conduct large-scale theory-building collaborations that are organized around logic models. I discuss the benefits these advances may have for the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:81-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718912000390
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas D. Cook & Dominique Foray, 2007. "Building the Capacity to Experiment in Schools: A Case Study of the Institute of Educational Sciences in the US Department of Education," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 385-402.
    2. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    5. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    6. Peredo, Ana María & McLean, Murdith, 2006. "Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 56-65, February.
    7. Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh & Morell, Jonathan A., 1978. "Evaluation: Manifestations of a new field," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-10, January.
    8. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    2. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    3. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    4. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    5. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    6. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    7. Jeffery S. McMullen & Katrina M. Brownell & Joel Adams, 2021. "What Makes an Entrepreneurship Study Entrepreneurial? Toward A Unified Theory of Entrepreneurial Agency," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(5), pages 1197-1238, September.
    8. Philipp Kruse, 2020. "Can there only be one? – an empirical comparison of four models on social entrepreneurial intention formation," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 641-665, June.
    9. Anthony Igwe & Anastasia Ogbo & Emmanuel Agbaeze & James Abugu & Charity Ezenwakwelu & Henry Okwo, 2020. "Self-Efficacy and Subjective Norms as Moderators in the Networking Competence–Social Entrepreneurial Intentions Link," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    10. Ayodotun, IBIDUNNI & Taiye, BORISHADE & Joy, DIRISU & Olaleke, OGUNNAIKE, 2015. "Determinants Of Consumers’ Perception Towards Pirated Products; The Case Of Social Entrepreneurs And Marketers In Music Industry," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 29(3), pages 66-76.
    11. Paola Bernardi & Alberto Bertello & Canio Forliano & Ludovico Bullini Orlandi, 2022. "Beyond the “ivory tower”. Comparing academic and non-academic knowledge on social entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 999-1032, September.
    12. Ching Yin Ip & Shih-Chia Wu & Huei-Ching Liu & Chaoyun Liang, 2018. "Social Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students from Hong Kong," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 27(1), pages 47-64, March.
    13. Susan Mueller & Taiga Brahm & Heidi Neck, 2015. "Service Learning in Social Entrepreneurship Education: Why Students Want to Become Social Entrepreneurs and How to Address Their Motives," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(03), pages 357-380, September.
    14. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    15. Inés Ruiz-Rosa & Desiderio Gutiérrez-Taño & Francisco J. García-Rodríguez, 2020. "Social Entrepreneurial Intention and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    16. Luc Phan Tan & Lan Xuan Pham & Trang Thanh Bui, 2021. "Personality Traits and Social Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Desirability and Perceived Feasibility," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 30(1), pages 56-80, March.
    17. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    18. Giuseppina Maria Cardella & Brizeida Raquel Hernández-Sánchez & Alcides Almeida Monteiro & José Carlos Sánchez-García, 2021. "Social Entrepreneurship Research: Intellectual Structures and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Douglas, Evan & Prentice, Catherine, 2019. "Innovation and profit motivations for social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 69-79.
    20. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:81-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.