Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation

  • Evaluation And Intervention
  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Algemene Rekenkamer. (1987).Handleiding doelmatigheidsonderzoek. Den Haag.

  • Argyris, C., & Shon, D. (1976).Theory in practice. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume, S. (1977). Policy as theory.Acta Sociologica, 20, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T. (1990).Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1984).The integrative research review: A systematic approach. London, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordray, D. S., & Lipsey, M. W. (1987).Evaluation studies review annual (vol. 11). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1981).Public policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1988). Justifying policy arguments: Criteria for practical discourse.Evaluation and Program Planning.

  • Dunn, W. N. (1988a). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis.Policy Studies Review.

  • Dunn, W. N., & Holzner, B. (1982).Methodological research on knowledge use and school improvement, Final Report. Washington, DC.: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N., & Holzner, B. (1988). Knowledge in society. Anatomy of an emergent field.Knowledge in Society, 1, 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, H., & Sherwood, C. (1970).Social research and social policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. (1986).Teenage pregnancy: 500,000 births a year but a few tested programs. Program Evaluation and Methodology division GAO: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. (1991).Prospective evaluation methods: the prospective evaluation synthesis. Methodology Transfer Paper 10.1.10, Washington, DC.

  • Glaser, E. M., Abelson, H. H., & Garrison, K. N. (1983).Putting knowledge to use. San Francisco: CRUSK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, R. (1974). A guide to the analysis of policy arguments.Policy Sciences, 5, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havelock, R. G. (1973).Planning for innovation. Ann Arbor: CRUSK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969).Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: UC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeven, E. van der (1987). Maatschappelijke bindingen van jongeren en veel voorkomende criminaliteit: het bereik van de sociale controletheorie,Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 29, 251–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeven, E. van der, Leeuw, F. L., & Wintels, P. (1989).Belangrijkste resultaten van een ‘standvan-zaken’ studie naar het empirisch gehalte van een beleidstheorie. Rapport: LISBON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J. (1988).De sociale controletheorie en de preventie van jeugdcriminaliteit, Paper, SIGO-Conferentie’ Jeugddelinquentie’. University of Wageningen: Wageningen (April 22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., & Block, R. L. (Eds.) (1988).Juvenile delinquency in the Netherlands. Berkeley: Kugel Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgard, S. (1979).Laboratory life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (1983).Overheid en bevolkingsgroei; evaluatie van beleidstheorieen. Doctoral thesis. University of Leiden, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (1985). Population policy in industralized countries: Evaluating policy theories to assess the demographic impact of population policy.Genus, 46, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (1989). Beleidstheorieen: Veronderstellingen achter beleid. In A. Hoogerwerf (Ed.),Overheidsbeleid. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samson, hoofdstuk 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (in press). Analzying policy theories and the systematic use of knowledge for public policy. In T. A. Barker & B. G. Peters (Eds.),Advising West European governments: Inquiries, expertise and public policy (Vol. I). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Leeuw, F. L. et al. (Eds.). (1989).Sociale bindingen van jongeren, kleine criminaliteit en beleid.

  • Majone, G. (1980). Policies as theories.The International Journal of Management Science, 8, 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981).Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazis, M., Settle, R., & Leslie, D. C. (1973). Elimination of phosphate detergents and psychological reactance.Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 390–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I., & Emshoff, J. R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and planning.Academy of Management Review, 4, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roethof Committee. (1984). 1986Interim-& Eindrapport Commissie Kleine Criminaliteit. Den Haag: SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1983).Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rook, A., & Leeuwenburg, J. W. (Ed.) (1991).Eindrapport Stuurgroep Bestuurlijke preventie van criminaliteit. Den Haag: SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Evaluation research, an assessment.Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1986).The reflexive practitioner. Belmond: Belmond Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standpunt Regering. (1991). Inzake heteindrapport van de Stuurgroep Bestuurlijke Preventie van Criminaliteit, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1991–1992, 22 300 VI, nr. 4 (September 18).

  • Suchman, E. A. (1967).Evaluative research, principles ad practice in public service and social programs. New York: Russel/Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958).The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vall, M., & Ulrich, H. J. (1986). Trends in data-based sociological practice: Towards a professional paradigm?Knowledge, 8, 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980).Social science research an decision making. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G. R., et al. (Eds.). (1981).Theory construction in marketing. New York: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. (1986).The core scholars and literature in studies of knowledge use: A citation analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Sociology, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Frans L. Leeuw

    Present address: Department of Policy Evaluation, Netherlands Court of Audit, 2500 EA The Hague, P.O. Box 20015, The Netherlands

Authors and Affiliations

    Authors
    1. Frans L. Leeuw
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Additional information

    Frans L. Leeuw (Ph.D. in Sociology) currently is Director of The Netherlands’ Court of Audit Department of Policy Evaluation. He also holds the chair of Professor of Policy Effectiveness Research at Utrecht University. Recent publications on policy theories, similarities and dissimilarities of auditing and evaluation research and on the utilization of policy research by government officials.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Leeuw, F.L. Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation. Knowledge and Policy 4, 73–91 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693089

    Download citation

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693089

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation