This qualitative case study investigated faculty perceptions of the purposes, costs, and benefits of program evaluation during a comprehensive review by the Office of Graduate Studies at a large Research I university. The assumptions held by the faculty at the beginning of the review process about the purposes of a program evaluation and their roles within it were challenged by the manner in which the evaluation was carried out. Analysis of interviews conducted over the course of the program evaluation focused on notions of participation and voice as seen through the lens of the faculty participants. Implications for enhancing stakeholder participation and voice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. In ShadishW.R., NewmanD.L., ScheirerM.A., and WyeC. (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation (No. 66, pp. 19—34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BuchanV. V. (1991). To assess or not to assess is no longer the question: Potential of program monitoring. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 25—33.
3.
ClearyT. S. (2001). Defining quality through the eyes of campus stakeholders. Community College Journal, 72, 41—47.
4.
CoghlanA. T., PreskillH., and CatsambasT. T. (2003). An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. In PreskillH., and CoghlanA.T. (Eds.), New directions for evaluation (No. 100, pp. 5—22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
CousinsJ. B., and EarlL. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397—418.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
7.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act–No. Child Left Behind, PL. 107–110, 115 stat 1425 (2002).
8.
GrassoP. G. (2003). What makes an evaluation useful? Reflections from experience in large organizations. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 507—514.
9.
GreeneJ. C. (1987). Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort?Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 379—394.
10.
GreeneJ. G. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12, 91—116.
11.
HoldawayE. A. (1988). Institutional self-study and the improvement of quality. In KellsH.R., and Van VughtF.A. (Eds.), Self-regulation, self-study and program review in higher education: Papers presented at the Ninth European Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), August, 1987 at the University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (pp. 47—68). Culemborg, Netherlands: Lemma.
12.
HouseE. R. (1990). Trends in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 19, 24—28.
13.
HouseE. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
LeachL., NeutzeG., and ZepkeN. (2001). Assessment and empowerment: Some critical questions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 293—305.
17.
LincolnY. S., and GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
OchsE. (1979). Transcription as theory. In OchsE., and SchieffelinB.B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43—72). New York: Academic Press.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
ReinekeR. A. (1991). Stakeholder involvement in evaluation: Suggestions for practice. Evaluation Practice, 12, 39—44.
22.
SaboK. (Ed.). (2003). Youth participatory evaluation: A field in the making (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
SergiovanniT. J. (1974). Synergistic evaluation. Teachers College Record, 75, 540—552.
24.
ShankG. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
25.
TorresR. T., and PreskillH. (1999). Ethical dimensions of stakeholder participation and evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 82, 57—66.
26.
TorresR. T., PreskillH., and PiontekM. E. (1997). Communicating and reporting: Practices and concerns of internal and external evaluators. Evaluation Practice, 18, 105—125.
27.
WelshJ. F., and MetcalfJ. (2003). Cultivating faculty support for institutional effectiveness activities: Benchmarking best practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 33—45.
28.
WhitmoreE. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
