Explaining Organizational Variety in Evaluation Quality Assurance: Which Conditions Matter?

REFERENCES

• Benson, A. P., Hinn, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2001). Preface. In A. P. Benson, M. D. Hinn, & C. Lloyd ( Eds.), Visions of quality: How evaluators define, understand and represent program quality ( pp. ix–xii). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as an approach. In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin ( Eds.), Configurational comparative methods ( pp. 19–32). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Borrmann, A., & Stockmann, R. (2009). Evaluation in German development cooperation. A system analysis. Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Cooksy, L., & Caracelli, V. (2005). Quality, context and use. Issues in achieving the goals of metaevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooksy, L., & Mark, M. M. (2012). Influence on evaluation quality. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 79–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delreux, T., & Hesters, D. (2010). Solving contradictory simplifying assumptions in QCA: Presentation of a new best practice (COMPASSS Working Paper, 58). Retrieved Mar. 23, 2014 from www.compasss.org
   Google Scholar
• De Meur, G. (1996). La comparaison des systèmes politiques: Recherche des similarities et des differences. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 3(2), 405–437.
   Google Scholar
• De Meur, G., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (1994). Comparing political systems: Establishing similarities and dissimilarities. European Journal of Political Research, 26, 193–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Meur, G., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (1996). Conditions of authoritarianism, fascism and democracy in inter-war Europe: Systematic matching and contrasting of cases for “small N” analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(4), 423–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Meur, G., Bursens P., & Gottcheiner, A. (2006). MSDO/MDSO Revisited for Public Policy Analysis. In B. Rihoux & H. Grimm ( Eds.), Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. Beyond the quantitative-qualitative divide ( pp. 67–94). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• De Meur, G., & Gottcheiner, A. (2009). The logic and assumptions of MDSO/MSDO designs. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin ( Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods ( pp. 208–221). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2013). EVALSED. The resource for the evaluation of socio-economic development. Retrieved Mar. 23, 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/guide/guide_evalsed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy-set approach to typologies in organisation research. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forss, K., Vedung, E., Kruse, S. E., Mwaiselage, A., & Nilsdotter, A. (2008). Are Sida evaluations good enough? Sida Studies in Evaluation: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Furubo, J. E., & Sandahl, R. (2002). Introduction. A diffusion perspective on global developments in evaluation. In J. E. Furubo, R. C. Rist, & R. Sandahl ( Eds.), International atlas of evaluation ( pp. 1–23). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• IAVA (2007, 2008, 2009). Jaarverslag van het Auditcomité en het Agentschap Interne Audit van de Vlaamse Administratie. Brussel: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Johnsen, A., Mecklin, P., Oulasvirta, L. & Vakkuri, J. (2001). Performance auditing in local government: An explorative study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing. The European Accounting Review, 10(3), 583–599.
   Google Scholar
• Katzenstein, P. J. & Okawara, N. (2001). Japan, Asian-Pacific security, and the case for analytical eclecticism. International Security, 26(3), 153–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. X. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mande. ( 2011). On evaluation quality standards. A list. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2013 from http://mande.co.uk/2011/lists/evaluation-quality-standards/on-evaluation-quality-standards-a-list/
   Google Scholar
• Mannewitz, T. ( 2011). Two-level theories in QCA: A discussion of Schneider and Wagemann’s two-step approach (COMPASSS Working Paper, 64). Retrieved Mar. 23, 2014 from www.compasss.org
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1973 [1843]). Of the four methods of experimental inquiry, Chapter VIII. In The collected works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. VII—a system of logic ratiocinative and inductive). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C., & Sonnett, J. (2004). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases and comparative analysis. In S. Kropp & M. Minkenberg ( Eds.), Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft ( pp. 180–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor centered institutionalism in policy research. Oxford, UK: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Max Planck Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung WP 00/3.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. (1993). The boundaries of bounded generalizations: Discourse as the missing factor in actor-centered institutionalism. In R. Mayntz & W. Streeck ( Eds.), Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie: Innovationen und Blockaden: Festschrift für Fritz W. Scharpf ( pp. 318–350). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2006). Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 751–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2003). Improving inference with a two-step approach: Theory and limited diversity in fs/QCA (EUI Working Papers. 2003/7). European University Institute: San Domenico di Fiesole.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R., & Mayne, J. (2005). Assuring the quality of evaluative information: Theory and practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Meer, F. B. (2007). New public management and evaluation. In C. Pollitt, S. Van Thiel, & V. M. F. Homburg ( Eds.), The new public management in Europe. Adaptation and alternatives ( pp. 165–180). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Varone, F., Jacob, S., & De Winter, L. (2005). Polity, politics and policy evaluation in Belgium. Evaluation, 11(3), 253–273.
   Google Scholar
• Vlaams Parlement. (2003, 18 July). Kaderdecreet Bestuurlijk Beleid. Brussels: Flemish Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Widmer, T. (2005). Instruments and procedures for assuring evaluation quality: A Swiss perspective. In R. Schwartz & J. Mayne ( Eds.), Quality matters. Seeking confidence in evaluating, auditing and performance reporting ( pp. 41–68). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Witte, J. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change. Comparing adaptations of European Higher Education Systems in the context of the Bologna Process (Dissertation to obtain the doctor’s degree). University of Twente, Twente.
   Google Scholar