English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is a long and rich tradition of developing and using program theories in evaluation. This commitment is reflected clearly within the Canadian federal government evaluation context. Despite two evaluation policy updates in the last decade, five out of the six accompanying guidance materials explicitly posit theorizing as foundational to evaluation efforts, whether addressing the develop­ ment of performance measurement strategies ( Treasury Board Secretariat, 2010), assessing resource utilization (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2013), rapid impact assessment (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2017), evaluating horizontal initiatives (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2012a), or program theory itself (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2012b). Theory has permeated the federal government evaluation landscape, the expectation clear that theorizing should underpin evaluation con­ versations. Expectations are still shrouded, however, by the various ways in which program theorizing can, and should, occur. The overarching aim of this special issue is to promote reflective practice in program theorizing: to expand and strengthen both the conceptual and technical foundations of program theories in evaluation and to establish theory develop­ ment and use as a fundamental tenet of evaluative thinking more broadly. Driving motivations for this special edition stem from decades of applied evaluation expe­ rience and cumulative, consistent reflection on behalf of the scholar practitioner guest editors who probe at the paradoxes of program theorizing and its unrealized potential to achieve many of its promised benefits. Underpinning this objective is the critical, accompanying shift in thinking, moving from “program theories in evaluation is a good idea” to “these are good ideas for program theorizing.” To be sure, the use of program theories in evaluation is nothing new. Early program theory inklings can be traced back to the work of Donald Kirkpatrick (1959 ), Edward Suchman (1967 ), and Daniel Stufflebeam (1967 ), among oth­ ers. However, the blossoming of program theories came with the formalization of theory-based evaluation in the 1980s (Bickman, 1987; Chen & Rossi, 1980, 1983). In Canada, program theory was embodied in component profi les, program models, and causal models, eventually becoming known as models that covered a review of the “rationale” of a program. These models were a fundamental piece

The Current Landscape of Program Theorizing