This study investigated internal and external evaluators' practices and concerns about communicating and reporting evaluation findings. Approximately three-quarters (72%) of a random sample of American Evaluation Association members responded to a survey on this topic. Most of those responding: (1) adhere to traditional reporting formats; (2) are only moderately satisfied with their communicating and reporting efforts; (3) found that insufficient time and political/organizational complexity impedes success in communicating and reporting; and (4) describe effective practice as typically entailing high stakeholder involvement. Internal evaluation was found to be not only equally as prevalent as external evaluation, but different in relation to certain communication and reporting practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlkinM. C. (1990). Debates on evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
BraskampL. A. (1982). A definition of use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 169–174.
3.
BraskampL. A.BrownR. D., (Eds.) (1980). Utilization of evaluative information. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 5.
4.
BrownR. D.NewmanD. L. (1982). An investigation of the effect of different data presentation formats and order of arguments in a simulated adversary evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 197–203.
5.
CousinsJ. B.DonohueJ. J.BloomG. A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators' self-reported opinions, practices and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17, 207–266.
6.
CousinsJ. B.EarlL. M. (Eds.) (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Falmer Press.
7.
CousinsJ. B.LeithwoodK. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56 (3), 331–364.
8.
CummingsO. W.NowakowskiJ. R.SchwandtT. A.EichelbergerR. T.KleistK. C.LarsonC. L.KnottT. D. (1988). Business perspectives on internal/external evaluation. In McLaughlinJ. A.WeberL. J.CovertR. W.IngleR. B. (Eds.), Evaluation utilization, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 39, 59–73.
9.
DeStefanoL. (1992). Evaluating effectiveness: A comparison of federal expectations and local capabilities for evaluation among federally funded model demonstration programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14 (2), 157–168.
FettermanD. (1994b). Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17 (3), 305–313.
13.
FettermanD. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
GreeneJ. C. (1992, April). Stakeholder interests in program evaluation: How well are they served by collaborative and interpretive perspectives? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
15.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255–274.
16.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1990). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
HendricksM.HandleyE. A. (1990). Improving the recommendations from evaluation studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 109–117.
18.
HendricksM.PapagiannisM. (1990). Do's and don't's for offering effective recommendations. Evaluation Practice, 11, 121–125.
19.
HouseE. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
HouseE. R. (1996). Evaluation in the government market place. Evaluation Practice, 18, 37–48.
21.
JenlinkP. M., (Ed.) (1995). Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school.Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.
22.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
LoveA. J. (1983). The organizational context and the development of internal evaluation. In LoveA. J. (Ed.), Developing effective internal evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 20, 5–22.
24.
LoveA. J. (1991). Internal evaluation: Building organizations from within. Newbury Park: Sage.
25.
MathisonS. (1991a). What do we know about internal evaluation?. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (1), 159–165.
26.
MathisonS. (1991b). Role conflicts for internal evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (1), 173–179.
27.
MorrisL. L.FitzgibbonC. T.FreemanM. E. (1987). How to communicate evaluation findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
National Science Foundation. (1969). Knowledge into action: Improving the nation's use of the social sciences. Washington, D. C.: Author.
29.
PattonM. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
PophamW. J. (1993). Educational evaluation. (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
33.
PosavacE. J.CareyR. G. (1992). Program evaluation: methods and case studies (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
34.
PosavacE. J.CareyR. G. (1997). Program evaluation: methods and case studies. (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
35.
PreskillH. S. (1991). The cultural lens: Bringing utilization into focus. In LarsonC. L.PreskillH. S. (Eds.), Organization in transition: Opportunities and challenges for evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 49, 5–16.
36.
PreskillH. S. (1994). Evaluation's role in enhancing organizational learning: A model for practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17 (4), 291–297.
37.
PreskillH. S. (1997, March). HRD evaluation as the catalyst for organizational learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Atlanta.
38.
PreskillH. S.TorresR. T. (1996, November). From evaluation to evaluative inquiry for organizational learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta.
39.
Qualis Research Associates (1987). The Ethnograph Software. Corvallis, OR.
40.
ReichardtC. S.RallisS. F., (Eds.) (1994). The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61.
41.
RipleyW. K. (1985). Medium of presentation: Does it make a difference in the reception of evaluation information? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7 (4), 417–425.
42.
ScrivenM. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In HouseE. R. (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 319–328). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
43.
ScrivenM. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
ShadishW. R.Jr.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of programs evaluations: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45.
StakeR. E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In MadausG. F.ScrivenM.StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 287–310). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
46.
StenzelN. (1991). Evaluation in a state education agency. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14, 181–187.
47.
TorresR. T. (1991). Improving the quality of internal evaluation: The consultant-mediator approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (4), 189–198.
48.
TorresR. T.PreskillH.PiontekM. E. (1996). Evaluation strategies for communicating and reporting: Enhancing learning in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
WeissC. (Ed.) (1977). Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Health.
50.
WinbergA. (1991). Maximizing the contributions of internal evaluation units. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (1), 167–172.
