Patton continues the debate by identifying three arenas of evaluation practice in which the formative/summative dichotomy appears limited: knowledge-generating evaluations aimed at conceptual rather than instrumental use; developmental evaluation; and use of evaluation processes to support interventions or empower participants. In so doing, the essence of "evaluation" is more broadly defined, and the impact of harsh criticism on the listener is demonstrated through personal example.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M.C., Daillak, R., & White, P. (1979). Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference?Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Aubel, J. (1993). Participatory program evaluation: A manual for involving stakeholders in the evaluation processDakar, Senegal: Catholic Relief Services under a U.S. AID grant.
3.
Barley, Z.A., & Jenness, M. (1993). Cluster evaluation: A method to strengthen evaluation in smaller programs with similar purposesEvaluation Practice , 14(2), 141-147.
4.
Brookfield, S. (1994). Tales from the dark side: A phenomenography of adult critical reflectionInternational Journal of Lifelong Education, 13(3), 203-216.
5.
Campbell, J.L. (1994). Issues of cluster evaluation usePaper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston, MA.
6.
Chen, H. (Ed.) (1989). Special issue: The theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 4.
7.
Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluationsNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Chen, H., & Rossi, P. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validityEvaluation and Program Planning, 10, 95-103.
9.
Council on Foundations. (1993). Evaluation for foundations: Concepts, cases, guidelines and resourcesSan Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Cousins, J.B., Donohue, J.J., & Bloom, G. (1995). Collaborative evaluation: Survey of practice in North AmericaUnpublished paper presented at the International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Monograph inquiries: bcousins@educ-1.edu.uottawa.ca.
11.
Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. (Eds). (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning.London: Falmer Press.
12.
Dugan, M. (1995). Participatory and empowerment evaluation: Lessons learned in training and technical assistance In D. M. Fetterman, A. J. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation : Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Fetterman, D.M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. American Evaluation Association Presidential AddressEvaluation Practice , 15(1), 1-15.
14.
Fetterman, D.M. (1995). Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape TownEvaluation and Program Planning , 17(3), 305-313.
15.
Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, A. J., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.) (1995). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
General Accounting Office. (1992). Adolescent drug use prevention: Common features of promising community programs GAO/PEMD-92-2. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO.
17.
Guttman, D. & Susman, M. B. (Eds.) (1995). Exemplary social intervention programs for members and their families. Special issue of Marriage and Family Review, 21 , 1-2.
18.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standardsThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Kellogg Foundation, n.d. (circa 1995). W. K. Kellogg Foundation cluster evaluation model of evolving practicesBattle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.
20.
King, J.A. (1995). Involving practitioners in evaluation studies: How viable is collaborative evaluation in schools In J. B. Cousins, & L. Earl (Eds.) Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning, pp. 86-102. London : Falmer Press.
21.
Leviton, L.A., & Hughes, E.F.X. (1981). Research on utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesisEvaluation Review , 5(4), 525-548.
22.
Mayer, S.E. (1993). Common barriers to effectiveness in the independent sector In A Vision of Evaluation, pp. 7-11. Washington, D.C. : Independent Sector.
23.
Mayer, S.E. (1994). Building community capacity: The potential of community foundationsMinneapolis, MN: Rainbow Research, Inc.
Patton, M.Q. (1988). Integrating evaluation into a program for increased utility and cost-effectiveness In J. A. McLaughlin, L. J. Weber, R. Covert, R. B. Ingle (Eds.) Evaluation Utilization , New Directions in Program Evaluation Series, No. 39, 85-95. Jossey-Bass , San Francisco.
Patton, M.Q., Bringewatt, M., Campbell, J., Dewar, T., & Mueller, M. (1993). The McKnight Foundation Aid to Families in Poverty Initiative: A synthesis of themes, patterns and lessons learnedMinneapolis, MN: The McKnight Foundation.
29.
Patton, M.Q., Grimes, P.S., Guthrie, K.M., Brennan, N.J., French, B.D., & Blyth, D.A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research In C. Weiss (Ed.) Using social research in public policy making, pp. 141-164. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
30.
Rossi, P.H., & Freeman, H.E. (1985). Evaluation: A systematic approachBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31.
Sanders, J.R. (1994). Methodological issues in cluster evaluationPaper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston, MA.
32.
Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantageNew York: Doubleday.
33.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven, M. (Eds.) Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, pp. 39-83. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
34.
Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.) Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century, pp. 18-64. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
35.
Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesisEvaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.
36.
Scheirer, M.A. (1987). Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluators In L. Bickman (Ed.) Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, No. 33, 59-76. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
37.
Shadish, W.R., Jr. (1987). Program micro- and macrotheories: A guide for social change In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, No. 33, 93-110. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
38.
Shadish, W.R., Jr., Newman, D.L., Scheirer, M.A., & Wye, C. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, No. 66. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
39.
Stockdill, S.H., Duhon-Sells, R.M., Olson, R.A., & Patton, M.Q. (1992). Voices in the design and evaluation of a multicultural education program: A developmental approach In A. M. Madison (Ed.) Minority issues in program evaluation. New Directions in Program Evaluation Series, No. 53, 17-34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
Wadsworth, Y. (1995). "Building In" research and evaluation to human services. Unpublished report to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia, Melbourne.
41.
Wargo, M.J. (1989). Characteristics of successful program evaluations In J. S. Wholey & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.) Improving government performance: Evaluation strategies for strengthening public agencies and programs, pp. 71-82. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
Weiss, C.H. (1990). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? In M. Alkin (Ed.) Debates on evaluation , pp. 171-184. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
Weiss, H.B.Greene, J.C. (1992). An empowerment partnership for family support and education programs and evaluationsFamily Science Review , 5(1,2), 145-163.
44.
Worthen, B.R. (1994). Conceptual challenges confronting cluster evaluationPaper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston, MA.
