There has been an increasing interest in evaluation strategies that encourage utilization. This
article outlines a set of guiding principles that can lead to the more effective instrumental use
of evaluation findings. These principles suggest that an evaluator needs to be involved in the
action and change that emerge from the evaluation findings. These findings imply an extension
of the range of expertise over and above skills currently associated with an effective evaluator,
to include those expected of an effective change agent within agencies and organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M.C.1990. Debates on evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Barrington, G.V.1990. Evaluator skills nobody taught me or what's a nice girl doing in a place like this. Paper read at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, 18-20 October, Washington, DC.
3.
Brennan, M., and R. Hoadley.1984. School self evaluation. Melbourne, Australia: School Improvement Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Education.
4.
Davis, H.R., and S.E. Salasin.1975. The utilization of evaluation. In Handbook of evaluation, edited by E. Struenig and M. Guttentag, vol. 1, 621-66. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Fullan, M.G.1987. Implementing educational change: What we know. Paper prepared for the World Bank Seminars, Planning for Educational Change. Mimeo.
6.
Hall, G.E.1991. The local educational change process and policy implementation . Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1-5 April, at Chicago, Illinois.
7.
Holly, P., and D. Hopkins.1988. Evaluation and school improvement. Cambridge Journal of Education18 (2): 251-75.
8.
Hord, S., S. Stiegelbauer, and G. Hall.1984. Principals don't do it alone: Researchers-discover second change facilitator active in school improvement efforts. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education Review2 (3).
9.
Johnson, N.J.1989. Teachers and change: A literature review. University of Melbourne, Institute of Education. Mimeo.
10.
Lambert, F.C.1987. Initiating formal evaluation practices in Victorian secondary schools: A meta-evaluation of whole-school and part-school evaluation strategies . Ph.D. diss., University of Melbourne, Australia.
11.
Lindblom, C.E., and D.K. Cohen.1979. Usable knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman.1984. Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Owen, J.M.1990. Encouraging small scale program evaluation: Roles for an external evaluator. Evaluation Journal of Australia2 (3): 41-49.
14.
-. 1992. Towards a meta-model of evaluation utilization. Paper read at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, November, at Seattle, Washington.
15.
-. 1993. Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
16.
Patton, M.Q.1990. The challenge of being a profession. Evaluation Practice11 (1): 45-51.
17.
Smith, M.F.1988. Evaluation utilization revisited. In New directions for program evaluation, evaluation utilization, edited by J. McLaughlin, L. J. Weber, R. W. Covert, and R. B. Ingle, 7-20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Smith, N. L., ed. 1982. Communication strategies in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Stake, R.E., and J.A. Easley.1978. Case studies in science education. Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
20.
Weiss, C.H.1988. If program decisions hinged only on information: A response to Patton. Evaluation Practice9 (3): 9-20.
21.
Weiss, C.H. and M.J. Bucuvalas.1980. Truth tests and utility tests: Decision makers' frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review45 (2): 26-44.
