Using the Schwandt and Halpern model of auditing a constructivist study, the article describes an audit from the perspectives of both the auditor and the inquirer requesting the audit. Presented are the steps of the audit as enacted, the issues raised during the experience, and recommendations for those seeking and performing audits of construc tivist inquiries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berreth, D. (1986). Experiences of naturalistic inquirers during inquiry Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
2.
Boreman, K., LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1986). Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn't workAmerican Behavioral Scientist , 30(1), 42-57.
3.
Chambers, D., Wedel, K., & Rodwell, M.K. (1992). Evaluating social programsBoston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Chelimsky, E. (1985). Comparing and contrasting auditing and evaluation: Some notes on their relationshipEvaluation Review , 9, 483-503.
5.
Crowley, S. (1995). Proposal for a constructivist inquiry of implementation of federal housing policy in and between three entitlement jurisdictions [photocopied]Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University.
6.
Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological MethodsNew York : McGraw-Hill.
7.
Green, J., Doughty, J., Marquart, J., Ray, M., & Roberts, L. (1988). Qualitative evaluation audits in practiceEvaluation Review, 12(4), 352-375.
8.
Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialogNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluationNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Halpern, E. (1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
11.
Hudson, J., & McRoberts, H. (1984). Auditing evaluation activities In L. Rutman (Ed.), Evaluation research methods: A basic guide (2nd ed., pp. 219-236). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Lincoln, Y. (1990). The making of a constructivist In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiryBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation In D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (pp. 73-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Phillips, D. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will not waneEducation and Urban Society , 20(1), 9-24.
17.
Schwandt, T., & Halpern, E. (1988). Linking auditing and metaevaluation: Enhancing quality in applied inquiryNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Skrtic, T. (1985). Doing naturalistic research into educational organizations In Y Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution (pp.185-220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Smith, J. (1984). The problem of criteria for judging interpretive inquiryEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 6(4), 379-391.
