Non-partisan, as defined here, refers to an evaluation that is and is regarded by partisans of all persuasions as balanced, fair, and faithful, so that if methodological quality is high, debates focus on the implications of the findings for practice or policy, not on the credibility of the findings themselves. This paper examines, from an historical perspective, what strategies have been used to achieve non-partisan evaluation, how well these have worked, and whether, however hard we try, there is a limit after which our virtue is unrewarded.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bell, S. (1997). Crafting a non-partisan evaluation in a partisan world: The Urban Institute new federalism evaluation. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Meeting, San Diego (November).
2.
Bickman, L. (1996). Implications of the Fort Bragg evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17 (1), 57-74.
3.
Boruch, R. F. (1996). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Campbell, D. T., & Erlebacker, A. E. (1970). How regression artifacts can make compensatory education programs look harmful. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Compensatory education: A national debate (pp. 185-210). New York: Bruner/Mazel.
5.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Chelimsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (1), 35-55.
7.
Cook, T.D. (1997). Lessons learned in evaluation over the past 25 years. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 30-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Datta, L. (1999). The ethics of evaluation neutrality and advocacy. In M. Morris & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Ethical issues in program evaluation (pp. 77-88). New Directions in Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Davis, J. E. (1999). Commentary: Advocacy, care, and power. American Journal of Evaluation, 20 (1), 119-121.
10.
Fetterman, D., & Pitman, M.A. (Eds.). (1986). Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice and politics. Beverly Hills: Sage.
11.
Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1998). The issue of advocacy in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (2), 233-236.
13.
Lincoln, Y. (1998). Advocacy and changes of using inclusive evaluation approaches in evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (1), 101-122.
14.
Scriven, M. (1997). Truth and objectivity in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 477-500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Stake, R., & Davis, R. (1998). Summary of evaluation of reader focused writing for the veterans benefit administration. American Journal of Evaluation, 20 (2), 323-343.
16.
Urban Institute. (1997). Assessing the new federalism. Washington, DC.
17.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. (1994). New York: Gramercy Books.
18.
Wholey, J. S. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In K. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 15-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
