Using an Evaluation Hotline to Promote Stakeholder Involvement

Abstract

This article addresses the design and application of a hotline to promote broader community-wide participation in a public school evaluation. Evaluations of community resources such as public schools present evaluators with challenges from the perspective of promoting stakeholder involvement. Although many evaluation stakeholders are readily identifiable, there are potentially many unknown and hard-to-reach community leaders and residents who may want to participate in the evaluation. An evaluation hotline offers a mechanism for potentially identifying and reaching some of these interested community stakeholders and enabling their participation. This article introduces an evaluation hotline design and implementation, along with perceived hotline strengths and weaknesses observed in its use.

Keywords

community stakeholders stakeholder involvement evaluation hotlines stakeholder participation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cousins, J.B. , Donohue, J.J. & Bloom, G.A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators self-reported opinions, practices, and consequences. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(3), 207-226.

Cousins, J.B. , & Earl, L.M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.

Cousins, J. B. , & Earl, L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies of evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Falmer.

Fitzpatrick, J.L. , Sanders, J.R. , & Worthen, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidance (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Guba, E.G. , & Lincoln, E. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, J.A. (1995). Involving practitioners in evaluation studies: How viable is collaboration evaluation in schools. In J. B. Cousins & L. M. Earls (Eds.), Participatory evaluation in education: Studies of evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Falmer.

Miller, R.L. , & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 296-319.

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

10.

Posavac, E.J. , & Carey, R.G. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

11.

Rodman, J.S. , Frost, F. , & Jakubowski, W. (1998). Using nurse hotline calls for disease surveillance. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 4(2), 329-332.

12.

Rossi, P.H. , Lipsey, M.W. , & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Ryan, K. , Greene, J. , Lincoln, Y. , Matheson, S. , & Mertens, D.M. (1998). Advantages and challenges of using inclusive evaluation approaches in evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation , 19(1), 101-122.

14.

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

15.

Stake, R.E. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merril.

16.

Stufflebeam, D.L. , & Shinkfield, A.J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2006). Public involvement techniques for transportation decision making. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/hotlines.htm