IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v7y1983i6p707-728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the Technical and Bureaucratic Theories of Utilization

Author

Listed:
  • John G. Heilman

    (Auburn University)

Abstract

Technical and bureaucratic considerations frame current theories of utilization. These theorees distract attention from the range of broad substantive knowledge evaluators have generated. Two proposals recognize that this knowledge reservoir can help promote use if its contents are properly organized; both, however, have limitations. Data synthesis assumes scores of statistically comparable studies. Social problem study groups are not well-designed for making the knowledge frontiers they define generally accessible. This article suggests supplementing these approaches to building knowledge with an increased emphasis on synthesizing reviews. Even though such reviews currently enjoy modest status at best , they serve to strengthen the profession and promote utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • John G. Heilman, 1983. "Beyond the Technical and Bureaucratic Theories of Utilization," Evaluation Review, , vol. 7(6), pages 707-728, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:7:y:1983:i:6:p:707-728
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8300700601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8300700601
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8300700601?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pauley, P. Ann & Choban, M. C. & Yarbrough, J. Wade, 1982. "A systematic approach to increasing use of management-oriented program evaluation data," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 123-131, January.
    2. Cook, Thomas J. & Dobson, L. Douglas, 1982. "Reaction to reexamination: More on type III error in program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 119-121, January.
    3. Raskin, Ira E. & Coffey, Rosanna M. & Farley, Pamela J., 1980. "Controlling health care costs: An evaluation of strategies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Fulcomer, Mark C. & Pellegrini, Stephen G. & Lefebvre, Leo C., 1981. "Demographic and health-related predictors of the incidence of sudden infant death," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 43-56, January.
    5. Rezmovic, Eva Lantos, 1982. "Program implementation and evaluation results : A reexamination of type III error in a field experiment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 111-118, January.
    6. Tanner, Barry A., 1981. "Factors influencing client satisfaction with mental health services : A review of quantitative research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 4(3-4), pages 279-286, January.
    7. Klein, Rudolf, 1982. "Evaluation and social policy : Some reflections on ideas and institutions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 133-140, January.
    8. Zautra, Alex J. & Reich, John W., 1981. "Positive events and quality of life," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 4(3-4), pages 355-361, January.
    9. Dunst, Carl J. & Rheingrover, Regina M., 1981. "An analysis of the efficacy of infant intervention programs with organically handicapped children," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 4(3-4), pages 287-323, January.
    10. Morell, Jonathan A. & Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh, 1978. "The development of evaluation as a profession: Current status and some predictions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 11-17, January.
    11. Caro, Francis G., 1980. "Leverage and evaluation effectiveness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 83-89, January.
    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. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    2. Eva Lantos Rezmovic, 1984. "Assessing Treatment Implementation Amid the Slings and Arrows of Reality," Evaluation Review, , vol. 8(2), pages 187-204, April.
    3. P. Ann Pauley & Stan Cohen, 1984. "Facilitating Data-Based Decision-Making," Evaluation Review, , vol. 8(2), pages 205-224, April.
    4. Gullickson, Amy M., 2020. "The whole elephant: Defining evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    6. Ayoo, Sandra, 2023. "Perceptions of evaluator professional autonomy in North American evaluation practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:evarev:v:7:y:1983:i:6:p:707-728. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.