Site visits are a commonly employed, but little discussed, evaluation procedure. Our purpose is to review the state of the art regarding site visits, as well as to catalyze a discussion of site visits centering on the question of whether or not existing practices constitute a set of methods or a methodology. We define evaluative site visits and review the current state of practice in site visits. We also outline the differences between methods and methodology and consider whether or not the current state of practice constitutes a methodology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bickel, R., Tomasek, T., & Eagle, T. H. (2000, February 21). Top-down, routinized reform in low-income, rural schools: NSF’s Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n12.html
2.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
Braverman, M., & Slater, J. (Eds). (1996). Advances in survey research (New Directions for Evaluation No. 70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Caracelli, V., & Greene, J. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation No. 80, pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Dill, W. R. (1998, July/August). Specialized accreditation: Ah idea whose time has come? Or gone?Change, 30(4), 18-24.
10.
Dulman, D. A. (2002). Mail and internet survey: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
11.
Fowler, F. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12.
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 in targeting diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Gruenberg, D. E. (1983). College basic skills programs: A national survey. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education6(3), 2-4, 30-32.
14.
Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2002). (Eds.). Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Haun, G. (1996). Building an effective site investigation team. Educational Facility Planner, 33(4), 4-7.
16.
Kavanaugh, L. (1979). Guerilla accrediting: Accounting for community services and making community services count. Community Services Catalyst, 9(2), 15-19.
17.
Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2002). The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 331-338.
18.
Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., & Lavoie, B. (2002). A guide for planning and implementing site visits. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
19.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Mark, M., & Shotland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation (New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 35, pp. 95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Migotsky, C., & Stake, R. (2001). An evaluation of an evaluation: CIRCE’s metaevaluation of the site visits and issue papers of the ATE program evaluation. Urbana-Champaign, IL: CIRCE, University of Illinois.
24.
Mitchell, R. (1990). Site visits in the accreditation process of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Evaluation and Research in Education, 4, 75-79.
25.
Nightingale, D., & Rossman, S. (1994). Managing field data collection from start to finish. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 350-373). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Shotland, R. L., & Mark, M. (1987). Improving inferences from multiple methods. In M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation (New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 35, pp. 77-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Smith, R. A. (1989). Preparing your institution for a program project site visit. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 21(3), 27-33.
30.
Stake, R. (1970). Objectives, priorities, and other judgment data. Review of Educational Research, 40, 181-212.
31.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Straw, R., & Herrell, J. (2002). A framework for understanding and improving multi-site evaluations. In J. Herrell & R. Straw (Eds.), Conducting multiple site evaluations in real-world settings (New Directions for Evaluation No. 94, pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
34.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. (1986). Webster’s third new international dictionary of the English language (Unabridged). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
35.
Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
Wilcox, B. (1990). Is there a role for site visits in monitoring systems? A UK perspective. Evaluation and Research in Education, 4, 81-91.
37.
Worthen, B., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
38.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
