Adversary and committee hearings have been advocated as procedures that can effectively
involve large numbers ofpeople in clarifying issues and examining human testimony in the
evaluation of complex, highly politicized programs. This article reviews the strengths,
procedures, and applications of these two methods over the last fifteen years, summarizing
their problems and limitations as evidenced in field trials to date.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnstein, G. (1975) "Trial by jury: a new evaluation method, II The Outcome. ." Phi Delta Kappan57: 188-190.
2.
Brown, R.D. and M. Palmere (1984) "Judicial hearings as course evaluation strategies: can evaluator trainers practice what they preach?" Presented at the Evaluation Network/ Evaluation Research Society annual meeting , San Francisco.
3.
Bourexis, P.S. (1982) "The National Institute of Education minimum competency testing clarification process evaluation." Presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New York.
4.
Bullock, T. (1976) "An investigation of the judicial evaluation model: a case study of the evaluation of the Division of Teacher Education, Indiana University." Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
5.
Drennan, A. and C. Stalford (1982) "Summary of findings from the NIE in-house evaluation of 'Who's keeping score?' " Presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New York .
6.
Estes, G.D. and R. Demaline (1982) =: Phase II : Final Evaluation Report of Minimum Competency Testing Clarification Process. Portland, OR : Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
7.
Garvey, C. and M. Levine (1976) "Program evaluation: on trial." North Central Ass. Q.50: 359-363.
8.
Hendricks, M. (1982) "Oral policy briefings," pp. 249-258 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Communication Strategies in Evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
———( 1981) "Service delivery assessment: qualitative evaluations at the cabinet level (pp. 5-24) in N. L. Smith (ed.) New Directions for Program Evaluation: Federal Efforts to Develop New Evaluation Methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Herndon, E. (1980) NIE's Study of Minimum Competency Testing: A Process for the Clarification of Issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
11.
---and J.S. Shoemaker (1981) "A user's guide to videotapes and transcripts: 'Who's keeping score?'" Washington, DC: McLeod Corporation.
12.
House, E.R., P. Thurston and J. Hand (1984) "The adversary hearing as a public forum." Studies in Educ. Evaluation10: 111-123.
13.
Illinois Office of Education (1975) A meta-evaluation conducted by the Illinois Office of Education of an evaluation of the regional programs for educating low-incidence disabled children in Illinois conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory of the University of Illinois. Springfield, IL: Illinois Office of Education.
14.
Jackson, G. (1977) "Adversary evaluation: sentenced to death without a fair trial." [Letter to the editor] Educational Researcher6: 2.
15.
Kourilsky, M. (1973a) "An adversary model for educational evaluation ." Evaluation Comment4: 3-6.
16.
———( 1973b) "The Levine adversary model: an adversary comment." Evaluation Comment4: 6-7.
17.
---and E.L. Baker (1976) "An experimental comparison of interaction, advocacy and adversary evaluation." CEDR Q.9: 4-8.
18.
Levine, M. (1982) "Adversary hearings," pp. 269-278 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Communication Strategies in Evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
———( 1974) "Scientific method and the adversary model: some preliminary thoughts." Amer. Psychologist29: 661-677.
20.
———( 1973a) "Scientific method and the adversary model: some preliminary suggestions." Evaluation Comment4: 1-3.
21.
———( 1973b) "The Kourilsky adversary model: an adversary comment ," Evaluation Comment4: 7.
22.
---and N.S. Rosenberg (1979) "An adversary model of fact finding and decision making for program evaluation: theoretical considerations," in H. D. Schulberg and F. Baker (eds.) Program Evaluation in Health Fields (vol. 2). New York: Human Sciences Press.
23.
Levine, M., E. Brown, C. Fitzgerald, E. Goplerud, M.E. Gordon, C. Jayne-Lazarus, N. Rosenberg, and J. Slater (1978) "Adapting the jury trial for program evaluation: a report of an experience." Evaluation and Program Planning1: 177-186.
24.
Madaus, G.F. (1982) "The clarification hearing: a personal view of the process." Educ.Researcher 11: 4, 6-11.
25.
———( 1981a) "Framing issues for the clarification hearing on minimum competency testing: the con team's position." Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Research on Evaluation Program Newsletter 4: 6-11.
26.
———( 1981b) "NIE clarification hearing: the negative team's case ." Phi Delta Kappan63: 92-94.
27.
Nadler, B. and K. Shore (1979) "Evaluating educational programs: an experience with the judicial evaluation model." Education, 99: 387-391.
28.
Nafziger, D.H., J. Benson, and B.R. Worthen (1977) 3 on 2 evaluation report, 1976-1977 (vol. 1). Technical report, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR.
29.
National Institute of Education (1981) Minimum Competency Testing Clarification Hearing, Transcript (vol. 1-3, July 8-10). Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Owens, T.R. (1973) "Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding ," pp. 295-305 in E. R. House (ed.) School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
31.
———( 1971) "Application of adversary proceedings for educational evaluation and decision-making." Presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New York.
32.
---and T.R. Owen (1981) "Law," pp. 87-110 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Metaphors for Evaluation: Sources of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Owens, T.R., J.F. Haenn, and H.L. Fehrenbacher (1976) The Use of Multiple Strategies in Evaluating an Experience-Based Career Education Program (ERIC ED 137 325 . Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
34.
Popham, W.J. (1982) "Melvin Belli Beware!, " Educ. Researcher11: 11-15.
35.
———( 1981a) "The case for minimum competency testing." Phi Delta Kappan63: 89-91.
36.
———( 1981b) "Framing issues for the clarification hearing on minimum competency testing: the pro team's position." NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory Research on Evaluation Program Newsletter 4: 2-6.
37.
———and D. Carlson (1977) "Deep, dark deficits of adversary evaluation." Educ. Researcher6: 3-6.
38.
Shoemaker, J.S. (1982) "Television presentations," pp. 289-304 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Communication Strategies in Evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
———( 1981) "Minimum competency clarification hearings." National Council on Measurement in Education News 24: 3-4, 12.
40.
Shore, K. (1977) "The judicial evaluation model in theory and practice ." School Psychology in New Jersey19: 6-8.
41.
St. John, M. (1984) "Committee hearings: their use in evaluation." Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Research on Evaluation Program Evaluation Guides, No. 8.
42.
Stake, R.E. and D.E. Balk (1982) "Briefing panel presentations," pp. 259-267 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Communication Strategies in Evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
Stake, R.E. and C. Gjerde (1971) An evaluation of TCity: The Twin City Institute for Talented Youth. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
44.
Stenzel, N. (1982a) "Committee hearings as an evaluation format,"pp. 83-100 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Field Assessments of Innovative Evaluation Methods (New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, Vol. 13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
---( 1982b) "Committee hearings," pp. 279-288 in N. L. Smith (ed.) Communication Strategies in Evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
46.
---( 1975) Evaluation and the Jury Trial Metaphor; Meta-Evaluation of an Adversary Hearing Evaluation of the Division of Teacher Education at Indiana University. Springfield, IL: Illinois Office of Education.
47.
Thurston, P. (1978) "Revitalizing adversary evaluation: deep dark deficits or muddled mistaken musings." Educ. Researcher7: 3-8.
48.
———and E.R. House (1981) "The NIE adversary hearing on minimum competency testing." Phi Delta Kappan63: 87-89.
49.
Wolf, R.L. (1979) "The use of judicial evaluation methods in the formulation of education policy." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis3: 19-28.
50.
———( 1978) Studying School Governance Through Judicial Evaluation Procedures. Bloomington: Indiana University, Indiana Center for Evaluation.
51.
———( 1975) "Trial by jury: a new evaluation method, I. The process . "Phi Delta Kappan57: 185-187.
52.
———( 1973) "Application to select legal concepts to educational evaluation ." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
53.
---and B.L. Tymitz (1977) Enhancing Policy Formation through Naturalistic Judicial Inquiry Procedures: A Study of the Individual Education Program Component of Public Law 94-142 (Technical Report. Bloomington : Indiana University, Indiana Center for Evaluation .
54.
Worthen, B.R. and T.R. Owens (1978) "Adversary evaluation and the school psychologist ." J. of School Psychology16: 334-345.
