Evaluator Roles and Strategies for Expanding Evaluation Process Influence

Abstract

This article explores various evaluator roles and strategies that have the potential to increase the likelihood that the evaluation process will have an influence on an organization and its members. These roles are (1) educator, (2) consultant, (3) facilitator, and (4) counselor. A brief case study presents the discussion dynamics of an evaluation workgroup. This workgroup resulted in programmatic changes based primarily on the discussion of developing indicators for measuring student outcomes. Practical implications for evaluators seeking to enhance process influence may involve the evaluator using a “client-centered” approach. Facilitating collaborative, open environments and managing discussion dynamics are fundamental in establishing a community of organizational learners. These dynamics may take the form of both task-focused and task-related discussions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brisolara, S. (1998). The history of participatory evaluation and current debates in the field. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Caracelli, V. J. (2000). Evaluation use at the threshold of the twenty-first century. In V. J. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New directions in evaluation (Vol. 88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Catania, C. A. (1992). Learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Coffman, J. (2002, Spring). A conversation with Michael Quinn Patton. The Evaluation Exchange, 8, 10-11.

Corey, G. , Corey, M. , & Callahan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Harrison, O. (1997). Open space technology: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Hatry, H. , van Houten, T. , Plantz, M. C. , & Greenway, M. T. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way.

Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In V. J. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New directions in evaluation!(Vol. 88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

O’Sullivan, R. G. , & O’Sullivan, J. M. (1998). Evaluation voices: Promoting evaluation from within programs through collaboration. Evaluation and Program Planning, 21, 21-29.

11.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Preskill, H. (1994). Evaluation’s role in enhancing organizational learning: A model for practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 291-297.

13.

Preskill, H. (2000, November). The evaluation profession as a sustainable learning community. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Honolulu, HI.

14.

Preskill, H. , & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209-225.

15.

Preskill, H. , & Torres, R. T. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 387-395.

16.

Preskill, H. , & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

18.

Scriven, M. (2001). Evaluation: Future tense. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 301-307.

19.

Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). High impact internal evaluation: A practitioner’s guide to evaluating and consulting inside organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New directions in evaluation (Vol. 89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.