To help evaluation professionals better understand what an authentic attempt at Developmental Evaluation (DE) ought to look like and when it is appropriate to use, Michael Patton’s provocative essay (this issue) offers evaluators eight sensitizing concepts to call on as guides. Patton states these concepts succinctly define DE and persuasively argues each must be unequivocally evident for an evaluation to earn the DE label. But are these eight concepts sufficient to clarify when and how to conduct DE? At the request of the editors, I comment on the adequacy of sensitizing concepts for evaluating in the context of emergent innovation.
AckoffR. L. (1991). Ackoff’s fables: Irreverent reflections on business and bureaucracy. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
2.
AckoffR. L. (1999). Recreating the corporation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
ChristieC. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 7–36.
4.
ChristieC. A.QuinonesP. M.FieroL. (2014). Informing the discussion on evaluator training: A look at evaluators’ course taking and professional practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 274–290.
5.
CorynC. L. S.NoakesL. A.WestineC. D.SchröterD. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 199–226.
6.
FloodR. L. (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the unknowable. London, England: Routledge.
7.
ForresterJ. W. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In De GreeneK. B. (Ed.), The systemic basis of policy making in the 1990s (pp. 199–240). London, England: Springer.
8.
HirschG. B.LevineR. L.MillerR. L. (2007). Using system dynamics modeling to understand the impact of social change initiatives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 239–253.
9.
HomerJ.HirschG.MinnitiM.PiersonM. (2004). Models for collaboration: How system dynamics helped a community organize cost-effective care for chronic illness. System Dynamics Review, 20, 199–222.
10.
HovmandP. (2014). Community based system dynamics. New York, NY: Springer.
11.
MeadowsD. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
12.
MidgleyG. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
13.
MillerR. L. (2010). Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 390–399.
14.
MillerR. L.CampbellR. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296–319.
15.
PattonM. Q.McKeggK.WehipeihanaN. (2015). Developmental evaluation exemplars: Principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
16.
ReynoldsM.HolwellS. (2010). Introducing systems approaches. In ReynoldsM.HolwellS. (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 1–24). London, England: Springer.
17.
RichmondB. (1994). Systems thinking/system dynamics: Let’s just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10, 135–157.
18.
RittelH. W. J.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
19.
StermanJ. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
20.
UlrichW. (1996). A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Hull, England: University of Hull, Centre for Systems Studies.
21.
UIrichW.ReynoldsM. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In ReynoldsM.HowellS. (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 243–292). London, England: Springer.
22.
Van den BeltM. (2004). Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Washington, DC: Island Press.
