연구동향 분석
박사

Aid Evaluation Quality and Affecting Factors: A case-study and meta-evaluation of South Korea

정지선 2016년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' Aid Evaluation Quality and Affecting Factors: A case-study and meta-evaluation of South Korea' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 관리와 보조서비스
  • aid evaluation
  • development evaluation
  • evaluationquality
  • foreign aid
  • oda
  • results management
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
788 0

0.0%

' Aid Evaluation Quality and Affecting Factors: A case-study and meta-evaluation of South Korea' 의 참고문헌

  • Yoon, Su Jae. 2014. A study on the Improvement of Meta-Evaluation of the ODA Program. Korea Institute of Public Administration (in Korean).
  • Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Sage Publications.
  • Wingate, L.A. (2010). "Metaevaluation: Purpose, Prescription and Practice." In E. Bader, P. Peterson, and B. McGraw (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education(3rd ed.). San Diego: Elsevier.
  • Windsor, R. A., Boyd, N. R., & Orleans, C. T. (1998). A meta-evaluation of smoking cessation intervention research among pregnant women: improving the science and art. Health Education Research, 13(3), 419-438.
  • Willis, K. (2006). Interviewing. Doing development research, 144-152.
  • Wholey, J. S. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry & K. E. Newcomer, Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 15 39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Weiss, C. H. (1997). Theory‐based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation, 1997(76), 41-55.
  • Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts, 1, 65-92.
  • Walz, J., & Ramachandran, V. (2011). Brave new world: a literature review of emerging donors and the changing nature of foreign assistance. Center for Global Development Working Paper, (273).
  • Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. Report commissioned by the Department for International Development. Draft– review report and practical resources.
  • Uusikyl , P., & Virtanen, P. (2000). Meta-Evaluation as a Tool for Learning A Case Study of the European Structural Fund Evaluations in Finland. Evaluation, 6(1), 50-65.
  • United Nations Evaluation Group (2005), Standards for Evaluation in the UN System.
  • USAID. (2013). Meta-evaluation of quality and coverage of USAID evaluation.
  • Trochim, W. M., & Visco, R. J. (1986). Assuring quality in educational evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(3), 267-276.
  • Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. http://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  • Suchman, E. A. (1969). Evaluating educational programs: A symposium. Urban Review, 3(4), 16.
  • Suchman, E. A. (1967). Evaluative research (pp. 31-32). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., & National Study Committee on Evaluation Phi Delta Kappa. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2010). Meta-evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 99-158.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist. Western Michigan University. The Evaluation Centre. Retrieved June, 2, 2009.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2004). The 21st century CIPP model. Evaluation roots, 245-266.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31-62). Springer Netherlands.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In Evaluation models (pp. 117-141). Springer Netherlands.
  • Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management decision, 39(7), 551-556.
  • Stanley, J., & Campbell, J. (1966). Experimental and Ouasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
  • Stake, R. E., & Schwandt, T. A. (2006). On discerning quality in evaluation. The Sage handbook of evaluation, 404-418.
  • Simons, H. (2006). Ethics in evaluation. The Sage handbook of evaluation, 243-265.
  • Shadish, W. R., Newman, D. L., Scheirer, M. A.,&Wye, C. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Sage.
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
  • Scriven, M. (2013). Key evaluation checklist (KEC). Retrieved from http://michaelscriven.info/images/KEC_7.25.2013.pdf
  • Scriven, M. (2012). Evaluating Evaluations: A Meta-evaluation checklist. Retrieved from http://michaelscriven.info/images/EVALUATING_EVALUATIONS_8.1.11.pdf
  • Scriven, M. (2005). Encyclopedia of evaluation. California, United States: Thousand Oaks.
  • Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Sage.
  • Scriven, M. (1981). The Logic of evaluation. Inverness, United Kingdom: Edgepress.
  • Scott-Little, C., Hamann, M. S., & Jurs, S. G. (2002). Evaluations of after-school programs: A meta-evaluation of methodologies and narrative synthesis of findings. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 387-419.
  • Schwartz, R.,&Mayne, J. (Eds.). (2004). Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing, and performance reporting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
  • Schwartz, R., & Mayne, J. (2005). Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice. Evaluation and program planning, 28(1), 1-14.
  • Schwandt, T. A. (1990). Defining “quality” in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13(2), 177-188.
  • Schacter, M. (2000). Monitoring and evaluation capacity development in sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from experience in supporting sound governance. World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department.
  • Savedoff, W. D., Levine, R., & Birdsall, N. (2006). When will we ever learn?: Improving lives through impact evaluation. Center for Global Development.
  • Sato, J., Shiga, H., Kobayashi, T., & Kondoh, H. (2011). “Emerging donors” from a recipient perspective: An institutional analysis of foreign aid in Cambodia. World Development, 39(12), 2091-2104.
  • Sasaki, R. (2008). Metaevaluation by Formal Evaluation Theory of Aid Evaluation Work. ProQuest.
  • SIDA. (2008) Are Sida Evaluations Good Enough? - An Assessment of 34 Evaluation Reports.
  • Rebien, C. C. (1996). Evaluating development assistance in theory and in practice. Avebury.
  • Raitzer, D. A., & Kelley, T. G. (2008). Benefit–cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR. Agricultural Systems, 96(1), 108-123.
  • Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2003). Program evaluation: An overview. Program evaluation: Methods and case studies, 1-22.
  • Picciotto.R. (2005) The value of evaluation standards: a comparative assessment. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation 3 (2005),: 30-59.
  • Picciotto, R. (2011). The logic of evaluation professionalism. Evaluation, 17(2), 165-180.
  • Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: The promise of realist synthesis'. Evaluation, 8(3), 340-358.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. (4th ed.). Sage publications. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Olsen, K., & O’Reilly, S. (2011). Evaluation Methodologies. Retrieved September, 26, 2014.
  • Ofir, Z., Kumar, S., & Kuzmin, A. (2013). Evaluation in developing countries: What makes it different. Emerging practices in international development evaluation, 11-24.
  • OECD DAC (1991). DAC Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance, OECD: Paris.
  • OECD (2013). Evaluating Development Activities: 12 Lessons from the OECD DAC, OECD: Paris.
  • OECD (2012). Korea DAC Peer Review 2012, OECD: Paris.
  • OECD (2010). Evaluation in Development Agencies, Better Aid, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • OECD (2010). DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, OECD: Paris
  • Morra-Imas, L. G., Morra, L. G., & Rist, R. C. (2009). The road to results: Designing and conducting effective development evaluations. World Bank Publications.
  • Minns, J. (2001). Of miracles and models: the rise and decline of the developmental state in South Korea. Third World Quarterly, 22(6), 1025-1043.
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Finland. (2015). Meta-Evaluation of Project and Programme Evaluations in 2012-2014.
  • Mayoux, L. (2006). Quantitative, qualitative or participatory? Which method, for what and when. Doing development research, 115-129.
  • Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301.
  • Marvin C. Alkin (Ed.). (2004). Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists' views and influences. Sage.
  • Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
  • Manning, R. (2006). Will ‘Emerging Donors’ Change the Face of International Co‐operation?. Development policy review, 24(4), 371-385.
  • Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M. H., & Perstinger, M. (1999). Capacity development: definitions, issues and implications for planning, monitoring and evaluation. Universalia Occasional Paper, 35, 1-21.
  • Lundgren, H., & Kennedy, M. (2009). Supporting Partner Country Ownership and Capacity in Development Evaluation. The OECD DAC Evaluation Network. Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems, 77.
  • Loud, M. L., & Mayne, J. (Eds.). (2013). Enhancing evaluation use: insights from internal evaluation units. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
  • Lloyd, R., & Schatz, F. (2015). Improving Quality: Current Evidence on What Affects the Quality of Commissioned Evaluations.
  • Lele, U. J. (2004). The CGIAR at 31: an independent meta-evaluation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. World Bank Publications.
  • Leftwich, A. (1995). Bringing politics back in: Towards a model of the developmental state. The journal of development studies, 31(3), 400-427.
  • Leeuw, F. L., & Cooksy, L. J. (2005). Evaluating the performance of development agencies: The role of metaevaluations. Evaluating Development Effectiveness, World Bank Series on Evaluation and Development, New Brunswick, Transactions Publishers, 95-108.
  • Kirkhart, K. E. (2004, June). Culture, evaluation, and metaevaluation: A question of validity. Plenary address presented at the Howard University Training Institute, Washington, DC.
  • Kim, S., & Lightfoot, S. (2011). Does ‘DAC‐Ability’Really Matter? The emergence of non‐DAC Donors: Introduction to Policy Arena. Journal of International Development, 23(5), 711-721.
  • Kim, E. M., & Lee, J. E. (2013). Busan and beyond: South Korea and the transition from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness. Journal of International Development, 25(6), 787-801.
  • Kang, D. C. (2002). Bad loans to good friends: money politics and the developmental state in South Korea. International Organization, 56(1), 177-207.
  • KOICA (2013). Annual Evaluation Report 2013. Korea International Cooperation Agency.
  • KOICA (2008). Development Evaluation Guideline. Korea International Cooperation Agency.
  • Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282.
  • Jerve, A. M., & Selbervik, H. (2009). Self-interest and global responsibility: aid policies of South Korea and India in the making.
  • James, C. (2011). Theory of change review: A report commissioned by Comic Relief. Comic Relief. London.
  • Iverson, A. (2003), “Attribution and Aid Evaluation in International Development: a Literature Reivew”, International Development Research Center, Many 2003.
  • Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers.
  • Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 293-314.
  • Henry, G. T. (2001). How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 419-429.
  • Hedler, H., & Gibram, N. (2009). The Contribution of Metaevaluation to Program Evaluation: Proposition of a Model. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 210-223.
  • Hansen, H. F. (2005). Choosing evaluation models A discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation, 11(4), 447-462.
  • Hageboeck, Molly. (2011). “Trends in International Development Evaluation: Theory, Policy and Practices.” Washington, DC: USAID.
  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.
  • Greene, J. C. (1990). Technical quality versus user responsiveness in evaluation practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13(3), 267-274.
  • Goldenberg, D. A. (2001). Meta-evaluation of goal achievement in CARE projects: A review of findings and methodological lessons from CARE final evaluations, 1994- 2000. Retrieved January 31, 2015 from http://www.care.ca/libraries/dme/CARE%20Documents%20PDF/CARE%20MEGA%20Evaluation%20Synthesis%20Report.pdf
  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
  • Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. (2011). Impact evaluation in practice. World Bank Publications.
  • Gelis, M nica Lome a. "A conceptual and analytical framework for Meta-evaluation of evaluations of local climate change adaptation initiatives in Senegal."
  • Gariba, S.; Balogun, P.; Thanh An, P.T. with Hildenwall, V.(2010) Independent Review of the UNDP, Evaluation Policy, New York: UNDP
  • Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models (Vol. 31). John Wiley & Sons.
  • Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines.
  • Eyben, R., & Savage, L. (2013). Emerging and submerging powers: imagined geographies in the new development partnership at the Busan Fourth High Level Forum. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(4), 457-469.
  • EDCF (2008). EDCF ex-post evaluation guideline. Economic Development Cooperation Fund. Export-Import Bank of Korea.
  • E. Jane Davidson (Ed.). (2004). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Sage.
  • Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2011). Are ‘New’donors different? Comparing the allocation of bilateral aid between nonDAC and DAC donor countries. World Development, 39(11), 1950-1968.
  • Doucouliagos, H., & Paldam, M. (2008). Aid effectiveness on growth: A meta study. European journal of political economy, 24(1), 1-24.
  • Donaldson, S. I., Azzam, T., & Conner, R. F. (Eds.). (2013). Emerging practices in international development evaluation. IAP.
  • Dahler-Larsen, P. (2010). Defining Quality in Evaluation. In International Encyclopedia of Education 3rd Edition, Ed. Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker and Barry McGaw, 2010.. (3 ed.). Pergamon Press.
  • Dabelstein, N. (2003). Evaluation capacity development: Lessons learned. EVALUATIONLONDON-, 9(3), 365-369.
  • DFAT. (2014). Quality of Australian Aid Operational Evaluations. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Government of Australia.
  • Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of marketing quality certain. New York: New American Library.
  • Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
  • Cracknell, B. E. (2000). Evaluating development aid: issues, problems and solutions. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
  • Coryn, C. L., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schr ter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199-226.
  • Cooksy, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 24(2), 119-128.
  • Cooksy, L. J., & Mark, M. M. (2012). Influences on evaluation quality. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 79-84.
  • Cooksy, L. J., & Caracelli, V. J. (2005). Quality, Context, and Use Issues in Achieving the Goals of Metaevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 31-42.
  • Cook, T. D., & Gruder, C. L. (1978). Metaevaluation research. Evaluation Review, 2(1), 5- 51.
  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Contandriopoulos, D., & Brousselle, A. (2012). Evaluation models and evaluation use. Evaluation, 18(1), 61-77.
  • Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, 2, 15-44.
  • Clemens, M. A., & Demombynes, G. (2011). When does rigorous impact evaluation make a difference? The case of the Millennium Villages. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 3(3), 305-339.
  • Clark, H., & Anderson, A. (2004, November). Theories of change and logic models: Telling them apart. In American Evaluation Association Conference.
  • Chun, H. M., Munyi, E. N., & Lee, H. (2010). South Korea as an emerging donor: challenges and changes on its entering OECD/DAC. Journal of International Development, 22(6), 788-802.
  • Chianca, T. (2008). The OECD/DAC criteria for international development evaluations: an assessment and ideas for improvement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 41-51.
  • Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense the theory-driven approach. Evaluation review, 7(3), 283-302.
  • Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59(1), 106-122.
  • Chen, H. T. (2004). The roots of theory-driven evaluation. Current views and origins. Evaluation Roots. Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences. London: Sage Publications.
  • Charyulu, U., & Seetharam, M. (1990). A participatory evaluation of peoples development-projects-A case study. Journal of Rural Development, 9(2), 393-396.
  • Chapman, L. (2003). Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies. Journal of Health Promotion at, 248, 682-0707.
  • Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed‐method evaluation designs. New directions for evaluation, 1997(74), 19-32.
  • CIDC. (2014). Meta-Evaluation of Korea’s Development Evaluations for 2012 and 2013. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (in Korean)
  • Bustelo, M. (2002, October). Metaevaluation as a tool for the improvement and development of the evaluation function in public administrations. In The 2002 EES Conference: Three movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence. http://www. Europeanevaluation. org/general/Papers% 20for% 20the% 20web/f% 20Evidence (Vol. 20, p. E1).
  • Brinkerhoff, R. O., Brethower, D. M., & Hluchyj, T., Nowakowski. (1983). Program Evaluation: A Practitioner's Guide for Trainers and Educators. Norwell, Ma: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Bickman, L. (1990). Advances in Program Theory. New directions for program evaluation.
  • Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. New directions for program evaluation, 1987(33), 5-18.
  • Apthorpe, R., & Gasper, D. (1982). Policy evaluation and meta-evaluation: The case of rural co-operatives. World Development, 10(8), 651-668.
  • Anderson, A. A. (2006). The Community Builder's approach to Theory of Change: A practical guide to theory development. Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.
  • Amsden, A.H. (1992). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  • Alkin, M. C., & Coyle, K. (1988). Thoughts on evaluation utilization, misutilization and non-utilization. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14(3), 331-340.
  • Alkin, M. C., & Christie, C.A. (2004). An evaluation tree. In M.C. Alkin, & C.A. Christie (Eds.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp.12-65). London, United Kingdom: Sage.