Dialogue and discussion are fundamental to advancing the field of evaluation. Small informal discussion groups that focus on particular issues serve to promote productive dialogue about evaluation. This paper describes the dialogue of such a group. Because it is interactive, dynamic, and applied, we assert that the group is a personification of the nature of evaluation knowledge. We further argue that this group, and the way that it has been formulated, is particularly suitable for learning about evaluation, for socializing new people into the field, and for promoting continuing education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M.C. (1991). Evaluation theory development II. In M. McLaughlin & D. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education at quarter century (pp. 91-112). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Alkin (personal communication, December, 2002).
3.
Buber, M. (1961). Between man and man. London: Collins.
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.
Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 7-36), New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Greene, J. C. (2001). Dialogue on evaluation: A rational perspective. Evaluation, 7, 181-187.
7.
King, J. A. (2003). The challenge of studying evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 57-68), New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Mark, M. M. (2000). On the role of dialogue in evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 205-206.
9.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Understanding dialogue as practice. Evaluation, 7, 253-263.
10.
Smith, N. (2002). International students’ reflections on the cultural embeddedness of evaluation theory. The American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 481-492.
11.
Trevisan, M. S. (2002). Enhancing practical evaluation training through long-term evaluation projects. The American Journal of Evaluation, (23), 81-92.
12.
Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation: A hermeneutic perspective. Evaluation, 7, 253-263.
