Despite growing theoretical interest in collaborative and participatory forms of evaluation, little is known about evaluators' perceptions about such evaluation practices or their views about its viability. This article reports results from a survey of Canadian and American evaluators concerning such perceptions. Five-hundred and sixty-four evaluators responded to questions about their views and opinions of collaborative evaluation and a subsample of 348 (61.7%) also described a specific collaborative evaluation project in which they had recently participated. The survey results suggested that evaluators support a utilization-focused, stakeholder-servicearientation to the role and believe that the evaluator has a primary responsibility of maximizing intended use for intended users. Reported practices suggest that most evaluators engaged in collaborative activities that resemble the conventional stakeholder-based evaluation approach. These data are neither able to, nor are they intended tosupport one side or the other in the professional debate about whether evaluators ought to embrace collaborative evaluation as a legitimate direction within the profession. Rather, they add to the empirical knowledge base concerning this type of evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M.C. (1991). Evaluation theory development: II In M. W. McLaughlin, & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century, (pp. 91-112). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
Altschuld, J.W., Yoon, J.S., & Cullen, C. (1993). The utilization of needs assessment resultsEvaluation and Program Planning, 16, 279-285.
3.
Brandon, P.R. (1994, November). Involving program beneficiaries in reviews of evaluators' recommendations for curriculumPaper presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA
4.
Brunner, I., & Guzman, A. (1989). Participatory evaluation: A tool to assess projects and empower people In R. F. Connor, & M. H. Hendricks (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation: International innovations in evaluation methodology. (No. 42, pp. 9-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bryk, A. (Ed.) (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions in Program Evaluation, 17, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Cousins, J.B., Donohue, J.J., & Bloom, G.A. (1995, November). Collaborative evaluation: Survey of practice in North America. Monograph presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association, Vancouver, BC. (Submitted to Education Resources Information Centre).
7.
Cousins, J.B., & Earl, L.M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluationEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.
8.
Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies of evaluation use and organizational learning.London: Falmer.
9.
Cousins, J.B., & Leithwood, K.A. (1993). Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvementKnowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14(3), 305-333.
Fetterman, D.M. (1995). In responseEvaluation Practice , 16(2), 179-199.
12.
Garaway, G.B. (1995). Participatory evaluationStudies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 85-102.
13.
Green, L.W., George, M.A., Daniel, M., Frankish, C.J., Herbert, C.J., Bowie, W.R., & O'Neill, M. (1995). Study of participatory research in health promotionVancouver, BC: Royal Society of Canada.
14.
Greene, J.G. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluationEvaluation Review, 12(2), 91-116.
15.
Greene, J. (1994, November). Specific practices that facilitate actionPaper presented at the at the annual meeting of American Evaluation Association, Boston
16.
Huberman, M., & Cox, P. (1990). Evaluation utilization: Building links between action and reflectionStudies in Educational Evaluation, 16, 157-179.
17.
Jenlink, P.M. (1994). Using evaluation to understand the learning architecture of an organizationEvaluation and Program Planning , 17(3), 315-325.
18.
Johnson, R.B. (1995). Estimating an evaluation utilization model using conjoint measurement and analysisEvaluation Review , 19(3), 313-338.
19.
King, J.A. (1995). Involving practitioners in evaluation studies: How viable is collaborative evaluation in schools? In J. B. Cousins, & L. M. Earl (Eds.), Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning (pp. 86-102). London : Falmer.
20.
Larsen, J.K. (1985). Effect of time on information utilizationKnowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 7, 143-158.
21.
Levin, B. (1993). Collaborative research in and with organizationsQualitative Studies in Education, 6(4), 331-340.
22.
MacDonald, B. (1976). Evaluation and the control of education In D. A. Tawney (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications.London: MacMillan (Schools Council Research Studies).
23.
Mark, M., & Shotland, R.L. (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgmentsEvaluation Review , 9, 605-626.
24.
Mathison, S. (1994). Rethinking the evaluator role: Partnerships between organizations and evaluatorsEvaluation and Program Planning , 17(3), 299-304.
25.
McTaggart, R. (1991). When democratic evaluation doesn't seem democraticEvaluation Practice, 12(1), 9-21.
26.
Owen, J.M., & Lambert, F.C. (1995). Roles for evaluators in learning organizationsEvaluation, 1(2), 237-250.
Preskill, H. (1994). Evaluation's role in enhancing organizational learningEvaluation and Program Planning , 17(3), 291-297.
30.
Shadish, W.R., & Epstein, R.A. (1987). Patterns of program evaluation practice among members of the Evaluation Research Society and Evaluation NetworkEvaluation Review, 11(5),555- 590.
31.
Shapiro, J.P. (1988). Participatory evaluation: Towards a transformation of assessment for women's' studies programs and projectsEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 191- 199.
32.
Shulha, L., & Cousins, J.B. (1995, November). Utilization and social justice: Interconnections of meta-evaluation frameworksPaper presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association, Vancouver, BC
33.
Stake, R.E. (1975). To evaluate an arts program In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating arts education: A responsive approach.Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill.
34.
Stufflebeam, D. (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.
35.
Torres, R.T., Preskill, H., & Piontek, M. (1996). Evaluation strategies for communicating and reporting : Enhancing learning in organizations. Newbury Park : Sage.
