IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v8y1984i4p443-466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward a Coherent View of Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Sherrill

    (University of Cincinnati)

Abstract

The view of evaluation presented here is based on the expansion of outcome evaluation to include estimations of unintended outcomes. Projections of these outcomes into thefuture are also part of the expanded scope of outcome evaluation. Once identified as either private, merit, or public goods, benefit-cost analysis is then used to estimate the economic values of both types of projected outcomes. Human rights are identified as a separate way of valuing projected outcomes, distinct from, and in addition to, their monetary worth. In both cases we are interested in the impact of all discernable outcomes, so valued, on the level and distribution of income and rights. Kuhn's systems model of organizations is offered as a way of specifying the organizational function of evaluation. Essentially, evaluation provides information on the interaction of the organization, as a system, with its environment. This information is used by decision-makers to adaptively respond to the environmental conditions of the organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Sherrill, 1984. "Toward a Coherent View of Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 8(4), pages 443-466, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:8:y:1984:i:4:p:443-466
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8400800401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8400800401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8400800401?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. Sherrill, Sam, 1984. "Identifying and measuring unintended outcomes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-34, 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. Jabeen, Sumera, 2016. "Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 144-154.
    2. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2019. "Evaluating unintended program outcomes through Ripple Effects Mapping (REM): Application of REM using grounded theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.

    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:8:y:1984:i:4:p:443-466. 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.