In-house evaluators must develop evaluation procedures that accommodate not only their
own professional standards, but also the problem-solving styles of the organizations they
serve. This article describes how a small sample of evaluators have adapted their methods
to their contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barkdoll, G.L. (1980) "Type II evaluations: consultation and consensus ." Public Admin. Rev. (March/ April): 174-179.
2.
Bennett, C. A. and A. A. Lumsdaine [eds.] (1975) Evaluation and Experiment: Some Critical Issues in Assessing Social Programs. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Boruch, R. F. and H. W. Reicken [eds.] (1975) Experimental Testing of Public Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
Cohen, D.K. (1970) "Politics and research: evaluation of social action programs in education." Rev. of Educ. Research40: 213-238.
5.
Cooley, W.W. (1980) "The inevitable subjectivity of evaluators." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis3: 89-90.
6.
Kean, M.H. (1980) "Compromising positions: the objectivity of evaluators ." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis3: 87-88.
7.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1980) "The evaluator as negotiations facilitator-fact finder." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis2: 25-34.
8.
Lindblom, C. (1980) The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
9.
Weiss, C.H. (1971) Organizational Constraints on Evaluative Research . New York: Columbia University .
10.
Wise, R.I. (1980) "The evaluator as educator. "New Directions for Program Evaluation5: 11-18.
11.
Zeigenfuss, J.T., Jr. and D.I. Lasky (1980) "Evaluation and organizational development." Evaluation Rev.4: 665-676.
