This article discusses methodological issues in the use of the concept mapping technique in a study that identifies research priorities for perspectives on knowledge transfer in the field of population health. This method proved appropriate, and the results produced clearly identify research priorities from the viewpoint of both research and practice. We propose a critical analysis of methodological issues in the use of this technique to facilitate potential replication. Solutions are proposed to reduce obstacles encountered at each step of the procedure.

The Realist approach suggests a way to grasp the complexity of social interventions, through questioning what works, for whom, and under what circumstances. We present here some challenges and discussion on the use of this methodological innovation, based on an analysis of our own experience and an examination of the scientific literature. Although the Realist approach seems The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation Vol. 26 No. 3 Pages 37–59 ISSN 0834-1516 Copyright © 2012 Canadian Evaluation Society 38 The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation intellectually attractive, building its "Context-Mechanism-Outcome" configurations proves problematic. Finding the necessary information about context and outcome, differentiating contextrelated elements from those related to mechanisms, and adopting an accurate level of analysis are among the challenges in using the Realist approach.

A community organization in rural Québec, together with various inter-sectoral partners, wanted to make it possible for families to take their destiny into their own hands and improve their quality of life, in particular, their children's quality of life. The goal of this article is to present the three main innovative aspects in the evaluation of this community project, namely the value of a developmental evaluation approach, the relevance of a multipleneeds analysis framework, and the contribution of the continuous dissemination of the evaluation results to the project's development. This case study likewise sheds light on the factors that facilitate the use of evaluation results.

For many years, numerous attempts have been made to define empowerment, to identify its processes, and to suggest translations. Recently the debate has focussed on the complexity raised by its measurement and evaluation. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the contribution of Ninacs's framework (2002) in evaluating empowerment, by presenting its application to the evaluation of a health promotion program in Haiti. The instrument designed based on this framework was valued by the evaluation participants, making possible a simple and useful visual representation of a complex and multidimensional concept.

Due to the diversity of practices in participatory evaluation, it is not always easy to teach or practice this evaluation approach. This article aims to provide a preliminary attempt to validate the Weaver and Cousins (2005) framework in order to characterize three forms of participatory evaluation (stakeholder-based, practical, empowerment). The application of this framework to three case studies resulted in two recommendations to enhance the framework validity (detailing the values of the scale and reflecting on the relevance of stakeholder-based evaluation) and one research proposal recommendation (verifying the impact of empowerment evaluation).

Participation is often essential for successfully appropriating the results of an evaluation. Afghanistan has been a country at war since 1979, and its successive governments have left the entire public health system in the hands of international aid agencies. Having experienced and evaluated an implementation of financing mechanisms for health services, we analyze how, in a context of international emergency aid, a pluralist approach was possible, and observe the appropriation of results. The objective of this article is to identify facilitating factors of such an approach. To do this, we use an analytical framework based on and adapted from Patton's definition of participatory evaluation, which entails three main categories: content, process, and aims of the evaluation. We think that reinforcing the links engaging evaluator and participants through participatory evaluation can partially counter the potentially negative effects of a context involving a country at war.