Attempting to balance multiple stakeholder interests in program evaluation presents many challenges. The views of different stakeholders as part of a reference group, or multiple stakeholder voices within a sector, are often diverse and reflect different political and organisational interests. In order to ensure that the evaluation product is widely accepted, and thereby utilised, these differences need to be recognised, and mediated.
To work effectively with multiple stakeholders in this manner, the evaluator requires well developed negotiation skills. This paper argues that negotiation is an essential component to the planning stage of an evaluation, and that strategic steps need to be taken early in the evaluation process to ensure consensus is developed in stakeholder expectations regarding methodology and outcomes from the evaluation.
This article will put forward a number of negotiation principles for evaluation practice which view the evaluator as enabling stakeholders to appreciate all positions, including that of the evaluator, with consensus emerging from increased understanding and consciousness raising.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerS, RosenB., & SilversteinE.1998, ‘Emotions in negotiation: how to manage fear and anger’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 161–79.
2.
AlkinM., HofstetterC., & XiaoxiaA.1997, ‘Stakeholder concepts in program evaluation’, in ReynoldsA, & WalbergH (eds), Evaluation for educational productivity, JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
3.
AntesJ., HudsonD., JorgensenE., & MoenJ.1999, ‘Is a staged model of mediation necessary?’, Mediation Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, Spring, pp. 287–301.
4.
AyersT.1987, ‘Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: a stakeholder-collaborative approach’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 10, pp. 263–71.
5.
BerkR., & RossiP.1990, Thinking about program evaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
6.
BushR., & FolgerJ.1994, The promise of mediation: responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
7.
ByrkA.S. (ed.) 1983, Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
8.
CousinsJ.B., & EarlL.M.1995, (eds), Participatory evaluation in education: studies in evaluation use and organisational learning, Falmer Press, London.
9.
EganG.1990, The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping, 4th edn, Brooks/Cole, California.
FolgerJ.1994, A transformative approach to mediation: skills for practice, Department of Communication Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia.
12.
GoldN.1983, ‘Stakeholder and program evaluation: characterisations and reflections’, in BrykA.S. (ed), Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
13.
GubaE.G., & LincolnY.S.1981, Effective evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
GubaE.G., & LincolnY.S.1989b, ‘The countenances of fourth-generation evaluation: description, judgment, and negotiation’, in PalumboD.J. (ed.), The politics of program evaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
16.
HaleK.1998, ‘The Language of co-operation: negotiation frames’, Mediation Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2. pp. 147–62.
17.
HeronJ.1992, ‘The politics of facilitation: balancing facilitator authority and learner autonomy’, in MulliganJ, & GriffinC, Empowerment through experiential learning (pp. 121–125), Kogan Page, London.
18.
HouseE.R.1993, Professional evaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
19.
LawrenceJ., & CookT.1982, ‘Designing useful evaluations: the stakeholder survey’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 5, pp. 327–36.
20.
LevingerG., & RubinJ.1994, ‘Bridges and barriers to a more general theory of conflict’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, July, pp 20–35.
21.
MnookinR., PeppetS., & TulumelloA.1996, ‘The tension between empathy and assertiveness’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 12, no. 3. pp. 25–38.
22.
OwenJ.1993, Program evaluation forms and approaches, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
23.
OwenJ, with RogersP.1999, Program evaluation forms and approaches, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
24.
PattonM.Q.1997, Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
25.
PruitD.G., & CarnevaleP.J.1993, Negotiation in social conflict, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
26.
PutnamL.1994, ‘Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 10. no. 4, October, pp. 337–46.
27.
RobertsS.1983, ‘Mediation in family disputes’, Modern Law Review, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 537–57.
28.
ScrivenM.1993, Hard won lessons in program evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 58, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
29.
ScrivenM.1996, ‘Types of evaluation and types of evaluator’, Evaluation Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 151–61.
30.
StakeR.1983, ‘Stakeholder influence in the evaluation of Cities-in-Schools’, in BrykA.S. (ed) 1983, Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
31.
WallJ., & StarkJ.1996, ‘Techniques and sequences in mediation strategies: a proposed model for research’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, July, pp. 231–9.
32.
WeissC.1983a, ‘The stakeholder approach to evaluation: origins and promise’, in BrykA.S. (ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
33.
WeissC.1983b, ‘Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation’, in BrykA.S. (ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
34.
WinsladeJ., MonkG., & CotterA.1998, ‘A narrative approach to the practice of mediation’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, January, pp. 21–41.
