The Prose and Cons of Poetic Representation in Evaluation Reporting

Abstract

The evaluation of modern day social programming presents challenges to the evaluation community. Among these are the need for others to understand the complexity of unique social circumstances and the inclusion of a diverse range of evaluation participants. Such challenges may call for alternative methods of representation in evaluation reporting. In this article I make a case for and demonstrate the use of poetic transcription as one form of presenting evaluation findings. Taking language from focus group interviews, I constructed a poem intended to provoke report readers to engage in a process of reflective meaning making about the program being evaluated. I discuss my rationale for using poetic transcription as a form of evaluation reporting, the method by which I constructed the representation, and the reactions of the different stakeholders involved in the evaluation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cronbach, L. J. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Erlandson, D. A. , Harris, E. L. , Skipper, B. L. , & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Glesne, C. (1997). That rare feeling: Re-presenting research through poetic transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 202-221.

Hopson, R. K. (Ed.). (2000). How and why language matters in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

House, E. R. (1986). How we think about evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation (pp. 30-48). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

HyperRESEARCH 2.0 [Computer Software] (1999). ResearchWare, Inc., California, USA: Scolari Publications Software.

Kaminsky, A. (2000). Beyond the literal: Metaphors and why they matter. In R. K. Hopson (Ed.), How and why language matters in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 86 (pp. 69-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

10.

Kushner, S. (2000). Personalizing evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11.

MacNeil, C. (1999). The integrity of evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, AAG9940777.

12.

Madeus, G. F. , Scriven, M. S. , & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (1983). Evaluation models. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

13.

Madison, A. (2000). Language in defining social problems and in evaluating social programs. In R. K. Hopson (Ed.), How and why language matters in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 86(pp. 17-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Mertens, D. M. (1997). Challenges and advantages of using the emancipatory paradigm as a theoretical framework for evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, San Diego, CA.

15.

Rallis, S. F. , & Rossman, G. B. (2000). Dialogue for learning: Evaluator as critical friend. In R. K. Hopson (Ed.), How and why language matters in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 86(pp. 81-92). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Rossi, P. H. , & Freeman, H. E. (1985). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

17.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

18.

Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative inquiry, 4, 280-292.

19.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, C. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.