IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v66y2018icp7-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The need for theory evaluation in global citizenship programmes: The case of the GCSA programme

Author

Listed:
  • Goodier, Sarah
  • Field, Carren
  • Goodman, Suki

Abstract

Many education programmes lack a documented programme theory. This is a problem for programme planners and evaluators as the ability to measure programme success is grounded in the plausibility of the programme’s underlying causal logic. Where the programme theory has not been documented, conducting a theory evaluation offers a foundational evaluation step as it gives an indication of whether the theory behind a programme is sound. This paper presents a case of a theory evaluation of a Global Citizenship programme at a top-ranking university in South Africa, subsequently called the GCSA Programme. This evaluation highlights the need for documented programme theory in global citizenship-type programmes for future programme development. An articulated programme theory produced for the GCSA Programme, analysed against the available social science literature, indicated it is comparable to other such programmes in terms of its overarching framework. What the research found is that most other global citizenship programmes do not have an articulated programme theory. These programmes also do not explicitly link their specific activities to their intended outcomes, making demonstrating impact impossible. In conclusion, we argue that taking a theory-based approach can strengthen and enable outcome evaluations in global citizenship programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodier, Sarah & Field, Carren & Goodman, Suki, 2018. "The need for theory evaluation in global citizenship programmes: The case of the GCSA programme," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 7-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:7-19
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916303470
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.011?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. Lipsey, Mark W. & Pollard, John A., 1989. "Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 317-328, January.
    2. Chen, Huey T., 2016. "Interfacing theories of program with theories of evaluation for advancing evaluation practice: Reductionism, systems thinking, and pragmatic synthesis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 109-118.
    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. Kent, Douglas R. & Donaldson, Stewart I. & Wyrick, Phelan A. & Smith, Peggy J., 2000. "Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat gang offenders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 115-124, February.
    2. Ann Svensson, 2020. "How to Evaluate Collaboration within Research and Innovation," Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 5(3), pages 21-25, March.
    3. Omid Ali Kharazmi & Amirali Kharazmi, 2022. "A pathological analysis of challenges related to systems thinking studies in Iran," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 241-257, March.
    4. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    5. Anthony Petrosino, 2000. "Mediators and Moderators in the Evaluation of Programs for Children," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, February.
    6. Asghari, Shabnam & Heeley, Thomas & Bethune, Cheri & Graham, Wendy & MacLellan, Cameron & Button, Cathryn & Porter, Nicole & Parsons, Sandra, 2021. "Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    7. Geoffrey J. Syme & Brian S. Sadler, 1994. "Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 523-542, October.
    8. Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia & Graversen, Ebbe Krogh, 2020. "Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    10. Carol H. Weiss, 1997. "How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 21(4), pages 501-524, August.
    11. Nesman, Teresa M. & Batsche, Catherine & Hernandez, Mario, 2007. "Theory-based evaluation of a comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 267-281, August.
    12. Gravel, Jason & Bouchard, Martin & Descormiers, Karine & Wong, Jennifer S. & Morselli, Carlo, 2013. "Keeping promises: A systematic review and a new classification of gang control strategies," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 228-242.
    13. Jeremiah, Rohan D. & Quinn, Camille R. & Alexis, Jicinta M., 2018. "Lessons learned: Evaluating the program fidelity of UNWomen Partnership for Peace domestic violence diversion program in the Eastern Caribbean," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-67.
    14. Brousselle, Astrid & Champagne, François, 2011. "Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-78, February.
    15. Sowl, Stephanie & Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey & Collins, Clarin, 2022. "Teaching program evaluation: How blending theory and practice enhance student-evaluator competencies in an education policy graduate program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.

    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:66:y:2018:i:c:p:7-19. 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.