There is growing interest in the concept of ''mechanism'' across many areas of the social sciences. In the field of program and policy evaluation, a number of scholars have also emphasized the importance of causal mechanisms for explaining how and why programs work. However, there appears to be some ambiguity about the meaning and uses of mechanism-based thinking in both the social science and evaluation literature. In this article we attempt to clarify what is meant by mechanisms in the context of program evaluation by identifying three main characteristics of mechanisms and outlining a possible typology of mechanisms. A number of theoretical and practical implications for evaluators are also discussed, along with some precautions to consider when investigating mechanisms that might plausibly account for program outcomes.

This article examines the evolution of Ray Pawson’s realist theory of evaluation, with a particular focus on his most recent book, Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. It is not a substitute for reading the original text. Reviews always say less about a book than the book in question. The goal is to provide a broader context for interpretation and an invitation to consider critically the practical import of Pawson’s grand ambitions for a new evaluation science. Like previous writings, this latest call-to-arms will appeal to some quarters of the evaluation community and dismay others. Regardless, evaluators should not remain indifferent. Pawson presents a vigorous, if at times irreverent, argument for advancing evaluation as a realist enterprise. Science of Evaluation deserves to be read and discussed widely.

No abstract

Rehabilitation of offenders is, at present, an important focus among many correctional departments. A substantial body of international research literature now exists to guide the design and development of new programs that aim to reduce re-offending. However, successful implementation of these programs has been challenging for many correctional authorities. Drawing on the experience of a community correctional agency in Australia, this paper identifies and examines a number of barriers to successful delivery of community-based offender rehabilitation programs and services. The findings suggest that basing interventions on scientific knowledge about "what works" in offender rehabilitation is necessary but not sufficient for effective programs and services. More careful attention needs to be paid to how correctional authorities can take this research and implement it in practice.

No abstract

No abstract

This essay examines some of the core concerns of House's approach to evaluation, with specific reference to his latest book Evaluating: Values, Biases and Practical Wisdom. This is a difficult book to characterise in a few pithy statements. Part memoir, part evaluation novella and part scholarly textbook. Arguably, this is one of the most unique discourses on evaluation in the past decade. Anyone who has conducted evaluations knows there are always myriad choices. Determining what actions to take and who gets to decide is never easy. House provides a rich repository of wise counsel. After reading this book evaluators will find themselves pausing longer to think and reflect on everyday decisions. I conclude by offering some suggestions about areas where House's work could benefit from further development.

While the literature provides a strong conceptual justification for Interdisciplinary Research