|
The Golden Spike: Creating the Link Between Research and Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jennifer Brown,
Cornell University,
jsb75@cornell.edu
|
| William Trochim,
Cornell University,
wmt1@cornell.edu
|
| Abstract:
The need for evidence-based practice has already been well established and there are many efforts already underway to help facilitate the transition toward practice that is firmly based in solid evidence. However, this transition has focused almost exclusively on how research can be more effectively disseminated to a practitioner audience. For evidence-based practice to truly be successful, a better link between the questions that arise in practice and the research available to address such questions needs to be established. This paper will outline “The Golden Spike” method for linking an evidence base with program theory that will aid in streamlining evaluation by creating a bidirectional system for research-practice integration.
|
|
Implications of Scientific versus Stakeholder Theory in Formulating Program Theory and Designing Theory-driven Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Huey T Chen,
University of Alabama, Birmingham,
hchen@uab.edu
|
| Abstract:
This article will apply the conceptual formwork of program theory to systematically compare a scientific theory-based program and a stakeholder-based program. The comparisons include all the components of the change model (intervention, determinants, and outcomes) and all the components of the action model (implementing organization, implementers, intervention and service delivery protocols, associated organizations/community partner, ecological context, and target population). Concrete examples will be used to illustrate the differences.
The proposed article would provide insightful information on the nature and characteristics between the scientific theory and stakeholder theory traditions on program theory and the implications of these differences in affecting program design and evaluation. This article would also make contributions in highlighting the pros and cons of these two theory traditions, illuminating potential strategies to reconcile the potential conflicts between these two traditions, and proposing methods and strategies that evaluators could use to evaluate these programs.
|
| |