Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation.

This paper compares selected evaluation theories (Practical Participatory Evaluation, Values-Engaged Evaluation, Emergent Realist Evaluation) on the basis of their stated consequences. The discussion follows Mark's (2008) framework for research on evaluation and uses Miller's (2010) criteria of discernible impact and reproducibility in order to delineate the theories. The research on evaluation outcomes shows that some of the claims made by each evaluation theory are supported with evidence, but many substantial claims remain untested. The short term and long term goals espoused by each theory show noticeable differences in the consequences of each evaluation approach, with different emphases placed on organizational capacity, use of findings, or perceptions of the evaluation as outcomes of the prescribed evaluation approach.