Organizations involved in the development of innovative social programs are coming under increasing pressure to establish structures through which the users, targets, or beneficiaries of program activities can be involved in program planning and implementation. The dynamic that this sets up between the program and its wider environment, particularly in areas in which "new social movements" are operating, can be quite challenging. This article seeks to examine these dynamics, particularly in the context of program evaluation. It is argued that an engaged evaluation approach (drawing on an action research orientation) has particular strengths in such a situation, although the limitations and challenges of such an approach are also outlined. It may, for example, require careful management in terms of the dynamics of the evaluation team. The discussion is illustrated by examples drawn from the evaluation of a European program for disabled people in which the author as member of a research team from The Tavistock Institute was involved.
ARNSTEIM, S. R.A ladder of participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1969, 35(4), 216-257.
2.
BRACHT, N. (Ed.). Health promotion at the community level. London: Sage, 1990.
3.
COHEN, J.Rethinking social movements. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 1983, 2497-113.
4.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Report by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation and Results of the HELIOS Programme (1988-1991), SEC (92) 1206 Final, Brussels, July 6, 1992.
5.
DAUNT, P.Meeting disability: A European response. London: Cassell.
6.
EDER, K.New social movement?Telos, 1982, 5111-20.
7.
EPSTEIN, J.Public services: Working for the consumerIreland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1990.
8.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Resolution of the Council and the Representatives of Governments of the Member States of 20 December 1996 on Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities. July 30, 1996 (COM (96)406 final).
9.
EYERMAN, R., & JAMISON, A.Social movements: A cognitive approach. Cambridge: Polity, 1991.
10.
FETTERMAN, D. M., KAFTERIA, S. J., & WANDERSMIAN, G. (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation, knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
11.
FINKELSTEIN. Attitudes and Disabled People. Issues for Discussion Paper given at World Health Organization Meetings. Netherlands, June 24-28, 1980.
12.
FRIERE, P.Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin, 1970.
13.
GIDDENS, A.The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
14.
GUBER, E. G., & LINCOLN, Y. S.Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications, 1993.
15.
HABERMAS, G.Towards a rational society. London: Heinemann, 1971.
16.
HABERMAS, G.The theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.
17.
HAMBLETON, R.Consumerism, decentralisation and local democracy. Public Administration, Summer 1988, 66(2), 125-147.
18.
HERON, J. In P Reason and J. Rowan (Eds.), Human enquiry. New Paradigm Research, 1989.
19.
HILLS, D.Carer support in the community. HMSO, 1991.
20.
HILLS, D., et al. Look After Your Heart: Community Approaches to Health Education. Final report to HEA, 1995.
21.
HILLS, D., & STERN, E.The Evaluation of the Helios II Program. Final report to the European Commission, 1997.
22.
LOVELOCK, R., & POWELL, L. J., with Stack, E.Evaluation of U.K. Participation in the Helios Program. Final Report, CEDR, University of Southampton, Southampton, 1993.
23.
MELLUCCI, A.The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information, 1980, 19(2), 199-226.
24.
MELLUCCI, A.Social movements and the democratisation of everyday life. In J. Keans (Ed.), Civil society and the state. London: Verso, 1988.
25.
MILLER, E.The politics of involvement. In A. D. Colman and M. H. Geller (Eds.), Group relations reader (Vol. 2). Washington: A. K. Rice Institute, 1995.
26.
MILLER, E. et al. Effective support for self-help: Some lessons from the experience of the Self Help Alliance. In R. Jack (Ed.), Empowerment in community care. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
27.
NHS EXECUTIVE. Patient Partnership: Building a Collaborative Strategy, 1996.
28.
OFFE, C.Changing boundaries of institutional politics: Social movements since the 1960s. In C. S. Maier (Ed.), Changing boundaries of the politicalCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
29.
OLIVER, M.The politics of disablement. Macmillan, 1990.
30.
PARSONS, T Action theory and the human condition. New York: Free Press, 1978.
31.
POLLITT C. (Ed.). Consumerinsm and beyond (theme issue). Public Administration, Summer 1988, 166(2).
32.
SCOTT, A.Ideology and the new social movements. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.
33.
SHEMMINGS, D., & SHEMMINGS, Y.Defining participative practice in health and welfare. In R. Jack (Ed.). Empowerment in community care. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
34.
SMELSNER, N.Theories of collective behaviour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.
35.
STERN, E.National Programmes in Support of Local Initiatives. Paper produced for the OECD, Tavistock Institute, 1992.
36.
STERN, E.The Work of the Evaluation Development and Review Unit (EDRU). Tavistock Institute Annual Review1995/1996.
37.
STERN, E., et al. Final Report on the Evaluation of London Lighthouse, 1996.
38.
STRYDOM, P.Habermas and new social movements. Telos, 1990, 85, 156-164.
39.
STRYDOM, P.Environmental assessment sub report: The sociocultural dimension. ARTICU-LATE deliverable WA3.2, 1992.
40.
TOURAINE, A.The post industrial society. New York: Random House, 1971.
41.
TOURAINE, A.Reconceiving Social Movements. Social Problems, 1978, 26, 38-49.
42.
TOURING, A.The voice and the eye, an analysis of social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
43.
VANDERPLAAT, M.Beyond technique: Issues in evaluating for empowerment. Evaluation, July 1995, I(1).
44.
WEBSTER, F. E.Rediscovering the marketing concept. Business Horizons, May/June 1988, 31, 29-39.
