We present a planning guide that can be used to improve community-based evaluation. The planning guide consists of a set of questions that need to be discussed with all stakeholders. It covers issues relating to the nature and purpose of a community-based evaluation project, research methods and approaches, participation and decision-making, conflict and conflict resolution, and dissemination and use of results. The planning guide was developed through our experiences in an HIV/AIDS research and evaluation unit and a review of the literature. If community-based evaluators keep in mind the questions in this planning guide and discuss them early on with stakeholders, the evaluation process should benefit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ayers, T. (1987). Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: A stakeholder collaborative approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 263-271.
2.
Chavis, D., Stucky, P., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research to the community: A relationship between scientist and citizen. American Psychologist, 38(4), 424-434.
3.
Cheadle, A., Wagner, E., Koepsell, T., Kristal, A., & Patrick, D. (1992). Environmental indicators: A tool for evaluating community based health promotion programs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 8, 345-350.
4.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. In E. Chelimsky & W. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
Creswell, D. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6.
Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 33-46). New Directions for Evaluation, 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Fetterman, D. (1997). Empowerment evaluation and accreditation in higher education. In E. Chelimsky & W. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century (pp. 381-395). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations and community development: Insights for empowerment through research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 41-54.
9.
Forrester, K., & Ward, K. (1992). The potential and limitations: Participatory research in a university context. In K. Forrester & K. Ward (Eds.), A world of communities: Participatory research perspectives (pp. 165-184). North York, Ontario: Captus University Publications.
10.
Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5-18). New Directions for Evaluation, 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Health and Welfare Canada. (1989/1990). Developing knowledge for health promotion in Canada: Summary report on research priorities and strategies. Health Promotion, 28(3), 1-14.
12.
Israel, B., Schurman, S., & Hugentobler, M. (1992). Conducting action research: Relationships between organizational members and researchers. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 28, 74-101.
13.
Kaye, G. (1990). A community organizer’s perspective on citizen participation research and the research-practitioner partnership. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 151-157.
14.
Mellor, M. (1988). Ethics and accountability: Participatory research in a worker co-operative. Convergence, 21, 73-81.
15.
Mertens, D. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 1-14.
16.
Pederson, A., Edwards, R., Kelnor, M., Marshall, V., & Allison, K. (1988). Coordinating healthy public policy: An analytic literature review and bibliography. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
17.
Posavac, E., & Carey, R. (1997). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994). The relationship between the qualitative and quantitative research traditions. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The quantitative-qualitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 5-12). New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Rossi, P., Freeman, H., & Lipsey, M. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
Schroes, C. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Empowerment evaluation applied: Experiences, analysis, and recommendations from a case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 53-64.
21.
Schwandt, T. (1997). The landscape of values in evaluation: Charted terrain and unexplored territory. In D. Fournier & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Progress and future directions in evaluation: Perspectives on theory, practice, and methods (pp. 25-40). New Directions for Evaluation, 76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Sommer, R. (1987). An experimental investigation of the action research approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Research, 23, 185-199.
