@article{ref1,
title="The push for "truth in sentencing": Evaluating competing stakeholder constructions: The Case for Contextual Constructionism in Evaluation Research",
journal="Evaluation and program planning",
year="1994",
author="Hallett, Michael A. and Rogers, Robert",
volume="17",
number="2",
pages="187-196",
abstract="This article promotes the use of contextual constructionism in evaluation research. The article extends Palumbo and Hallett's 1992 argument rejecting traditional models of evaluation which assume that &quot;consensus&quot; is reached among &quot;key policymakers, managers and staff&quot; regarding program goals. Palumbo and Hallett argue that &quot;conflict&quot; more accurately characterizes program evaluation, due to the existence of &quot;multiple realities&quot; among stakeholders. They advocate a constructionist grounding for evaluation research. In the present article, the call for &quot;truth in sentencing&quot; in Tennessee (and to a lesser extent, across the country) is used to further illustrate conflict and to promote the use of a &quot;contextual constructionist&quot; approach to evaluation research.<p />",
language="",
issn="0149-7189",
doi="10.1016/0149-7189(94)90056-6",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(94)90056-6"
}