In recent years there has been increasing interest in the notion of process use, that is, in understanding the ways in which individuals learn about the evaluand, evaluation practice, and each other, from their involvement in an evaluation study. As a form of social constructivism, process use is most closely related to participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches. The purpose of this article is to report the results of an exploratory study of process use and to discuss a set of variables that may influence process use. In addition, we pose several future research questions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M., Daillak, R., & White, P. (1979). Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference?Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Alkin, M. C., & Taut, S. M. (2003). Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 1-12.
3.
Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
4.
Bruner, J. (1971). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
5.
Campbell, D. (2000). The socially constructed organization. London: H. Karnac Books Ltd.
6.
Compton, D., Glover-Kudon, R., Avery, M., & Morris, C. (2001). The Collaborative Evaluation Fellows Project: Background and overview of the model. Cancer Practice, 9(Suppl. 1), S4-S10.
7.
Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331-364.
8.
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5-23.
9.
Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum revisited. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
Fetterman, D. (2000). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Forss, K., Rebien, C. C., & Carlsson, J. (2002). Process use of evaluations: Types of use that preceded lessons learned and feedback. American Journal of Evaluation, 8(1), 29-45.
12.
Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
Greene, J. C. (2000). Challenges in practicing deliberative democratic evaluation. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Evaluation, 85.
14.
House, E., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1991). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
17.
Levinson, S., McElroy, K., & Thompson, N. (2001, April 25). Utilization of opinion leaders to better implement Tell A Friend. American Cancer Society Home Office, ACS Southeast Division, Inc.
18.
Leviton, L. C., & Huges, E. F. X. (1981). Research on the utilization of evalutions: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525-548.
19.
MacNeil, C. (2002). Evaluator as steward of citizen deliberation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(1), 45-54.
20.
Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and practice of informal learning in the knowledge era. In V. J. Marsick & M. Volpe (Eds.), Informal learning on the job (Vol. 3, pp. 80-95). San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
21.
Mathison, S. (2000). Deliberation, evaluation, and democracy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Evaluation, 85, 85-90.
22.
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.
23.
Owen, J. M., & Rogers, P. (1999). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26.
Patton, M. Q. (1998). Discovering process use. Evaluation, 4(2), 225-233.
27.
Perrone, V. (Ed.). (1991). Expanding student assessment. Cambridge, MA: ASCD.
28.
Preskill, H. (2001). Mainstreaming evaluation use within organizations. Presented at the annual American Evaluation Association conference, St. Louis, MO, November 2001.
29.
Preskill, H., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation Use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18(3), 209-225.
30.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2000). Critical inquiry and use as action. In V. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 55-70.
32.
Ryan, K. E., & Johnson, T. D. (2000). Democratizing evaluation: Meanings and methods from practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 85, 39-50.
33.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 127-160.
35.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New york: Doubleday Currency.
36.
Shulha, L., & Cousins, B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18(3), 195-208.
37.
Shulha, L. M., & Wilson, R. J. (2003). Collaborative mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387-396.
39.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
