This article considers matters relating to evaluation purpose, and the dissemination and use of findings. The author discusses some of the challenges occurring in a particular health services evaluation in New Zealand and proposes an acronym framework, based on the word ACCEPTANCE (accessibility, audience, criteria, credibility, credentials, communication, ethics, purpose, politics, participants, position, timeliness, tone, attitude, appearance, numbers, critique and excellence of evaluation) to explore associated issues in the wider evaluation context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Australasian Evaluation Society Inc.2002, AES guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations, <www.aes.asn.au>.
2.
CarrW.1985, ‘Philosophy, values and educational science’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 17, pp. 119–132.
3.
ConroyC.2000, ‘Exploring the difference in birth outcomes for low risk women in two small community based maternity units’, unpublished MHSc dissertation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
4.
CronbachL.J.1980, Towards reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods and institutional arrangements, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
5.
CrottyM.1998, The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.
6.
DavidsonC., & TolichM.1999, Social science research in New Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
7.
EmdenC., & SandelowskiM.1998, ‘The good, the bad and the relative, part one: conceptions of goodness in qualitative research’, International Journal of Nursing Practice, vol. 4, pp. 206–212.
8.
EmdenC., & SandelowskiM.1999, ‘The good, the bad and the relative, part two: goodness and the criterion problem in qualitative research’, International Journal of Nursing Practice, vol. 5, pp. 2–7.
9.
GreeneJ.C.2002, ‘Mixed methods of evaluation: a way of democratically engaging with a difference’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 23–29.
HamiltonD., MacDonaldB., KingC., JenkinsD., & ParlettM.1977, Beyond the numbers game: a reader in educational evaluation, Macmillan Education, Exeter.
12.
HunterM.2000, ‘Autonomy, clinical freedom and responsibility: the paradoxes of providing intrapartum care in a small maternity unit as compared with a large obstetric hospital’, unpublished MHSc thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.
13.
MacDonaldB.1980, ‘Letters to a headmaster’, in SimonsH (ed.), Towards a science of the singular, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
14.
Ministry of Health2002, Guidelines for lead maternity carers, Section 88 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, Ministry of Health, Wellington.
15.
PappsE., & OlssenD.1997, Doctoring childbirth and regulating midwifery in New Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
16.
PattonM.Q.1997, Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
17.
ReesC.1994, ‘Evaluating a research article’, British Journal of Midwifery, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 596–601.
18.
ScrivenM.1996, ‘Evaluation: the state of the art’, Proceedings of Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Wellington, pp. 107–122.
19.
ScrivenM.2003, ‘Evaluation as a new discipline’, seminar presentation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
20.
ScrivenM., & KramerJ.1994, ‘Risks, rights and responsibilities in evaluation’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 6, pp. 3–16.
21.
SykesJ.B.1983, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, New York.
22.
VeneyJ.E., & KaluznyA.D.1998, Evaluation and decision making for health services, 3rd edn, Health Administration Press, Chicago.
23.
WeissC.H.1986, ‘Research and policy-making: a limited partnership’, in HellerF (ed.), The use and abuse of social science (pp. 214–235), Sage Publications, London.
24.
WeissC.H.1999, ‘The interface between evaluation and public policy’, Evaluation, vol. 5, pp. 468–486.
