Jill Chouinard, in her article “The Case for Participatory Evaluation in an Era of Accountability” (this issue, p. 237), may be re-iterating what has often been claimed and arguably is infused already in much of our theory and practice: the value of participatory approaches in some, perhaps many situations. She summarizes these claims eloquently and well. Chouinard also may be saying that we should continue to examine evaluation policy in light of a changing world, evolving approaches, and new experiences with a wide range of evaluative thinking. If so, amen, sister. This is an on-going task, but necessary and worthwhile. Less benignly, however, Chouinard may be trying to make the case for participatory evaluation as a new uber-standard for all evaluation, particularly national studies in a “technocratic culture of accountability.” If so, I disagree. Such a claim seems unjustified for several reasons, including the benefits and current uses of evaluative multiplism, the limitations of evaluative monotheism, and value of building bridges rather than burning them.
BrownA. B.KlermanJ. A. (2012). Independent evaluation: Insights from public accounting. Evaluation Review, 38, 186–219.
3.
ChelimskyE. (1985). Budget cuts, data, and evaluation. Society, 22, 67.
4.
ChelimskyE. (2006). The purpose of evaluation in a democratic society. In ShawI. F.GreeneJ. C.MarksM. M. (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation (pp. 33–55). London, England: Sage.
5.
ChenH.TurnerN. C. (2012). Formal theory versus stakeholder theory: New insights from a tobacco-focused prevention program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 395–414.
6.
ChouinardJ. (2013). The case for participatory evaluation in an era of accountability. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 237–253.
7.
ChouinardJ. A.MoreauK.ParisS.CousinsJ. B. (2010). Special study of the national aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy. University of Ottawa, Canada: Center for Research on Education and Community Services. Prepared for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada.
8.
CookseyL. J.MarkM. (2012). Influences on evaluation policy. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 79–87.
9.
CousinsB. J.EarlL. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397–418.
10.
CousinsJ. B.ChouinardJ. A. (2007). Evaluation Framework: National Aboriginal Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. University of Ottawa, Canada: Center for Research on Educational and Community Services. Prepared for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada.
11.
DattaL. (2000). Seriously seeking fairness: Strategies for crafting non-partisan evaluations in a partisan world. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 1–14.
12.
DattaL. (2011). Politics and evaluation: More than methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 273–294.
13.
FettermanD. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
GashM. (2012).
Use of mixed methods in the evaluation of the Saving for Change Program in Mali. Presentation at the Sixth Webinar of Interaction: Impact Evaluation Guidance. September 19, 2012. Retrieved fromhttp://www.interaction.org/impact/evaluations-notes.
15.
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). (2009). Program evaluation: A variety of rigorous methods can help identify effective interventions. GAO-10-20. Washington, DC: Author.
JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.). (2007). Informing federal policies on evaluation methodologies: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation No. 113. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
MarkM. (2012). Influences on evaluation quality: Reflections and elaboration. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 85–87.
20.
MarkM. M.HenryG.JulnesG. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
MathisonS. (2009). Serving the public interest through educational evaluation: Salvaging democracy through rejecting neoliberalism. In RyanK. E.CousinsJ. B. (Eds.), The SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 525–538). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Morra-ImasL. G.RistR. (2009). The road to results: Designing and conducting effective development evaluations. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
PattonM. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
RoweA. (2012). Evaluation of natural resource interventions. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 384–395.
26.
ScheirerM. A. (2012). Forum: Expanding life cycle thinking: Evaluation through the program life cycle. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 263–294.
27.
ShipmanS. (2012). The role of context in valuing federal programs. In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. No. 133 (pp. 53–63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
SmitsP. A.ChampagneF. (2008). An assessment of the theoretical underpinnings of practical participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 427–442.
29.
TrimbleJ.TrickettE.FisherC.GoodyearY. (2012). A conversation on multicultural competence in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 112–123.
30.
TrochimW. M. K.MarkM. M.CookseyL. J. (Eds.). (2009). Evaluation policy and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation. No. 123. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
WhitmoreE. (Ed). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
