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, October 1994, 321-338.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, D.T. (1994). Retrospective and prospective on program impact assessmentEvaluation Practice, 15(3), 291-298.
2.
Conrad, K.J. (1994). Critically evaluating the role of experiments. New Directions for Program Evaluation (No. 63)San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programsNew York, NY: Macmillan.
4.
Fetterman, D.M. (1982). Ibsen's Baths: Reactivity and insensitivity (A misapplication of the treatment-control design in a national evaluation)Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 4(3), 261-279.
5.
. ( 1984). Ethnography in educational evaluationBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
. ( 1988a). Ethnographic educational evaluation In Fetterman, D. M. (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution.New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
7.
. ( 1988b). Excellence and equality: A qualitatively different perspective on gifted and talented educationAlbany, NY: State University of New York Press.
8.
_____.( 1988c). Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolutionNew York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
_____.( 1989b). Ethnography: Step by stepNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
. ( 1993a). Ethnography and policy: A catalytic combination for change In E. Jacob & C. Jordon (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12.
_____.( 1993b). Speaking the language ofpower: Communication, collaboration, and advocacy (Translating ethnography into action)London, England: Falmer Press.
. ( 1994b). Ethnographic evaluation in education In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of education.Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
15.
_____.( 1994c). Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape TownEvaluation and Program Planning , 17(3), 305-313.
16.
. ( 1995, in press). Empowerment evaluationThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1995, in press). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and toolsfor self-assessment and accountability.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Fetterman, D.M., & Pitman, M.A. (1986). Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politicsBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational researchNew York, NY: Academic Press.
20.
Hess, G.A. (1993). Testifying on the hill: Using ethnographic data to shape public policy In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Speaking the language of power: Communication, collaboration, and advocacy (Translating ethnography into action). London, England: Falmer Press.
21.
Hopper, K. (1993). On keeping an edge: Translating ethnographic findings and putting them to use—NYC's homeless policy In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Speaking the language of power: Communication, collaboration, and advocacy (Translating ethnography into action). London, England: Falmer Press.
22.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standardsThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Keller, J. (1995, in press). Empowerment evaluation and state government: Moving from resistance to adoption In D. Fetterman, S. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutionsChicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiryBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methodsNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reichardt, C.S. (1994). Summative evaluation, formative evaluation, and tactical researchEvaluation Practice , 15(3), 275-281.
29.
Reichardt, C.S., & Cook, T.D. (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation researchBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Rosenau, P.M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusionsPrinceton: Princeton University Press.
31.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus(4th edition, pp. 260-261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Shadish, W.R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good evaluation?Evaluation Practice , 15(3), 347-358.
33.
Smith, M. (1994). Evaluation: Review of the past, preview of the futureEvaluation Practice, 15(3), 217.
34.
Smith, N.L. (1981). Metaphors for evaluation: Sources of new methodsBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study researchThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Stufflebeam, D.L., & Shinkfield, A.J. (1985). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practiceBoston, MA: Kluwer-Njhoff Publishing.
37.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, Objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to goEvaluation Practice , 15(3), 321-338.
38.
Weeks, M.R., & Schensul, J.J. (1993). Ethnographic research on AIDS risk behavior and the making of policy In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Speaking the language of power : Communication, collaboration, and advocacy (Translating ethnography into action). London, England : Falmer Press.
39.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methodsBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
