As with many forms of evaluation, empowerment evaluation can be viewed as an ideology that promotes a particular set of social and professional values. Judging the quality and utility of empowerment evaluation thus requires a critical appraisal of the implications of adopting those values.
American Evaluation Association. (2003). Scientifically based evaluation methods. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://www.eval.org/doestatement.htm
2.
Braybrooke, D. (1967). Ideology. In The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 4, pp. 124-127). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Chelimsky, E. (in press). Factors influencing the choice of methods in federal evaluation practice. In G. Julnes & D. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (New directions for evaluation). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Cousins, J.B. (2005). Will the real empowerment evaluation please stand up? In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 183-208). New York: Guilford.
5.
Danieli, A., & Woodhams, C. (2005). Emancipatory research methodology and disability: A critique. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8(4), 281-296.
Fetterman, D.M. (1995). In response to Dr. Daniel Stufflebeam's “Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards. Where the future of evaluation should not go, and where it needs to go.” Evaluation Practice, 16(2), 179-199.
8.
Fetterman, D.M. (2005a). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice . In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 42-72). New York: Guilford.
9.
Fetterman, D.M. (2005b). In response to Drs. Patton and Scriven. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 418-420.
10.
Fetterman, D.M. (2005c). A window into the heart and soul of empowerment evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 1-26). New York: Guilford.
11.
Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford.
12.
House, E.R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Mertens, D.M. (in press). Stakeholder representation in culturally complex communities: Insights from the trans-formative paradigm. In P. R. Brandon & N. L. Smith (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation. New York : Guilford.
14.
Miller, R.L. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice , edited by David M. Fetterman and Abraham Wandersman. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 317-319.
15.
Miller, R.L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296-319.
16.
Patton, M.Q. (2005a). Patton responds to Fetterman, Wandersman, and Snell-Johns. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 429-430.
17.
Patton, M.Q. (2005b). Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context: Take two. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 408-414.
18.
Scriven, M. (2005a). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice . American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 415-417.
19.
Scriven, M. (2005b). A note on David Fetterman's response. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 431.
20.
Sechrest, L.E. (1997). Review of empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Environment and Behavior, 29(3), 422-426.
21.
Smith, J.K., & Deemer, D.K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Smith, N.L. (1980). The feasibility and desirability of experimental methods in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3(4), 251-256.
23.
Smith, N.L. (1999). A framework for characterizing the practice of evaluation, with application to empowerment evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (Special Issue), pp. 39-68.
24.
Smith, N.L. (2004a, May). Evidence and ideology. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Evaluation Society, Saskatoon, Canada.
25.
Smith, N.L. (2004b, November). Fundamental issues in evaluation. Presidential address presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, GA.
26.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards. Where the future of evaluation should not go, and where it needs to go. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 321-338.
27.
Wandersman, A., & Snell-Johns, J. (2005). Empowerment evaluation: Clarity, dialogue, and growth. American Journal of Evaluation , 26, 421-428.
28.
Wandersman, A., Snell-Johns, J., Lentz, L., Fetterman, D.M., Keener, D.C., Livet, M., et al. (2005). The principles of empowerment evaluation . In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 27-41). New York: Guilford.
29.
Woolf, H. B. (Ed.). (1975). Webster's new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam.
