IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/metbri/innpub749.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluative Reasoning: Methodological Briefs - Impact Evaluation No. 4

Author

Listed:
  • E. Jane Davidson

Abstract

Decision makers frequently need evaluation to help them work out what to do to build on strengths and address weaknesses. To do so, they must know not only what the strengths and weaknesses are, but also which are the most important or serious, and how well or poorly the programme or policy is performing on them. Evaluative reasoning is the process of synthesizing the answers to lower- and mid-level evaluation questions into defensible judgements that directly answer the key evaluation questions.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Jane Davidson, 2014. "Evaluative Reasoning: Methodological Briefs - Impact Evaluation No. 4," Papers innpub749, Methodological Briefs.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucf:metbri:innpub749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    2. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:213-227. is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bethany K & Nicole Motzer & Kelly J, 2023. "Pathway profiles: Learning from five main approaches to assessing interdisciplinarity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 213-227.

    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:ucf:metbri:innpub749. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Patrizia Faustini (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.