Evaluation takes place within a political and stakeholder context that has benefits for the relevance and usefulness of the evaluation. However, the politicised context also presents challenges in preserving evaluator independence and objectivity, with potential adverse consequences for the credibility of the evaluation. This article proposes that evaluators need to recognise and negotiate these challenges effectively to ensure that a quality evaluation results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlkinM., HofstetterC., & XiaoxiaA.1997, ‘Stakeholder concepts in program evaluation’, in ReynoldsA, & WalbergA (Eds), Evaluation for Educational Productivity, JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Australasian Evaluation Society (AES)2006, Guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations, <http://www.aes.asn.au/about>.
5.
BerkR.A., & RossiP.H.1990, Thinking about program evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
6.
ByrkA.S. (ed.) 1983, Stakeholder-based evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
7.
Conley-TylerM.2005, ‘A fundamental choice: internal and external evaluation?, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 4, nos 1 and 2, pp. 3–11.
8.
CousinsJ.B., & EarlL.M. (Eds) 1995, Participatory evaluation in education: studies in evaluation use and organisational learning, Falmer Press, London.
9.
DuganM.A.1996, ‘Participatory and empowerment evaluation’, in FettermanD.M., KaftarianS.J., & WandersmanA (Eds), Empowerment evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
10.
EstrellaM.2000, Learning from change: issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation, The International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
FraserD.2001, ‘Beyond ethics: why we need evaluation standards’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 1, no. 1, March, pp 53–58.
13.
GubaE.G., & LincolnY.S.1981, Effective evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
14.
GubaE.G., & LincolnY.S.1989a, Fourth generation evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
15.
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, Newbury Park, California.
16.
HouseE.R.1993, Professional evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park California.
17.
LennieJ.2006, ‘Increasing the rigour and trustworthiness of participatory evaluations: learnings from the field’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 27–35.
18.
MarkiewiczA.2005, ‘A balancing act: resolving multiple stakeholder interests in program evaluation’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 4, nos 1 and 2, pp 13–21.
19.
MikkelsenB.2005, Methods for development work and research, 2nd edn, Sage, New Delhi.
PawsonR.2006, Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective, Sage, London.
22.
SchwartzR., & MayneJ.2005, ‘Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 28, no. 1, pp 1–14.
23.
StakeR.1983, ‘Stakeholder influence in the evaluation of cities-in-schools’, in BrykA.S. (ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, no. 17, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
TaylorD., & BallochS.2005, The politics of evaluation: participation and policy implementation, The Policy Press, Bristol, England.
26.
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.
27.
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.
