The Persuasive Impact of Two Evaluation Reports On Agricultural Extension Administrators From Two Countries

Abstract

During the last 30 years, the amount of aid and technical assistance given to developing countries has increased tremendously. Because of the increased aid, cross-cultural evaluation has become more common. This study sought to determine whether culture has an influence on evaluation. The researchers accomplished this by conducting a simulation experiment designed to explore the persuasive impact of a qualitative and a quantitative evaluation report on high- and mid-level agricultural extension administrators from central Mexico and northern central United States. A doubly multivariate repeated measures MANOVA yielded the following results: (a) subjects from Mexico rated the evaluation reports significantly higher than did the U.S. subjects, (b) subjects rated the quantitative evaluation report significantly higher than the qualitative evaluation report, and (c) there was a weak interaction between culture and the methodological approach of the reports. The results are discussed and recommendations are made for international evaluators.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brislin, R. , W. Lonner , and R. Thomdike. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods New York: John Wiley.

Britan, G. 1991. Measuring program performance for federal agencies: Issues and options for performance indicators Washington, DC : Agency for International Development.

Cohen, J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences New York: Academic Press.

Cuthbert, M. 1985. Evaluation encounters in third world settings: A Caribbean perspective. In Culture and evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 25, edited by M. Patton. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Deal, T. , and A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fisher, G. 1980. International negotiation: A cross-cultural perspective Chicago: Intercultural Press.

Glass, G. , and K. Hopkins. 1984. Statistical methods in education and psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hayward, J. 1989. World Bank involvement in agricultural extension. In Technology systems for small farmers: Issues and options, edited by A. Kesseba. Boulder, CO: Westview

Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's consequences Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

10.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

McGuire, W. 1985. The nature of attitudes and attitude change In The handbook of social psychology, vol. 3, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

12.

Merriam, S. 1988. Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Merryfield, M. 1985. The challenge of cross-cultural evaluation: Some views from the field. In Culture and evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation , No 25, edited by M. Patton. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

14.

Morris, L. , O. Fitz-Gibbon , and M. Freeman. 1987. How to communicate evaluation findings Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Newman, D. , R. Brown , and L. Braskamp. 1980. Communication theory and the utilization of evaluation. In Utilization of evaluative information, edited by L. Braskamp and R. Brown. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Parlett, M. , and D. Hamilton. 1976. Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In Evaluation studies review annual , vol. 1, edited by G. Glass. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Patton, M. 1978. Utilization-focused evaluation Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

18.

Russon, C. 1993. Communication of evaluation results: A cross-cultural perspective. Ph.D. diss, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1993 Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 54:1778

19.

. Russon, C. , and L. Koehly. 1995. Construction of a scale to measure the persuasive impact of qualitative and quantitative evaluation reports Evaluation and Programming Planning: An International Journal 18(2): 165-78.

20.

Usaid. 1990. The A.I.D. evaluation system: Past performance andfuture directions Washington, DC: Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, Agency for International Development.