Our recent work with grassroots organizations raises several questions about empowerment evaluation. Critics have focused on concerns such as lack of rigor and objectivity, but few have addressed deeper philosophical issues. One of these issues centers on evaluation standards. Empowered program stakeholders who set the research agenda in the empowerment model may have different ideas from those of the professional evaluator about the structure of inquiry and the use of evaluation. In some cases, the evaluator may question the ethics underlying their choices. One critical issue is whether overarching standards for empowerment evaluation are needed, and if so, who defines them. A second issue focuses on whether there is harmony between the model's twin goals of evaluation ownership and group advocacy, which we found to be incompatible in some situations. Many grassroots organizations who were concerned with group advocacy (e.g., receiving recognition, attracting funding) found it pragmatic to surrender evaluation ownership to the institutionally-based, professional evaluators, particularly when they anticipated favorable evaluation findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChelimskyE. (1995). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field.American Evaluation Association Presidential Address, Vancouver, November, 1995.
2.
Evaluation Practice. 16(3), 215–225.
3.
ChelimskyE. (1996). From incrementalism to ideology and back: Can producers of policy information adjust to the full spectrum of political climates? Distinguished public policy lecture series (pp. 39–63). Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.
4.
ChelimskyE. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation. In ChelimskyE.ShadishW. (Ed.), Evaluation for the 21st century.Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
5.
CousinsJ. B.EarlL. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397–418.
6.
CousinsJ. B.EarlL. (1995). The Case for Participatory Evaluation: Theory, Research, Practice. Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning (pp. 3–18). London, Falmer Press.
7.
FettermanD. (1995). In response to Dr. Daniel Stufflebeam. Evaluation Practice, 16 (2), 177–197.
8.
ForesterJ. (Ed.), (1985). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
9.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, Seabury Press.
10.
FournierD. M. (Ed.), (1995). Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps. New Directions for Evaluation. Volume 68. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
11.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume I. Boston, MA, Beacon Press.
12.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Volume II. Boston, MA, Beacon Press.
13.
HardingS. (Ed.), (1987). Feminism and methodology. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
14.
HouseE. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications.
15.
KingJ. A. (1995). Involving practitioners in evaluation studies: How viable is collaborative evaluation in schools. In CousinsJ. B. L. E. (Ed.), (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. (pp. 86–102). London, Falmer Press.
16.
LevinB. (1993). Collaborative research in and with organizations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6 (4), 331–340.
17.
MaguireP. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA, Center for International Education.
18.
PattonM. Q. (1986). Utilization-focused evaluation.2nd editionNewbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
PattonM. Q. (1997a). Being active-reactive-adaptive: Evaluator roles, situational responsiveness, and strategic contingency thinking. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text, 3rd edition (pp. 117–145). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
21.
PattonM. Q. (1997b). Intended process uses: Impacts of evaluation thinking and experiences. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text, 3rd edition (pp. 87–113). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
22.
PattonM. Q. (1997c). Intended uses of findings. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text, 3rd edition (pp. 63–85). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
23.
ScrivenM. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In McLaughlinM. W.PhillipsD. C. (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century. 90th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 18–64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
ShadishW. R.Jr.CookT. D.LevitonL. C., (Eds) (1991). Joseph S. Wholey: Evaluation for program improvement. Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice (pp. 225–269). Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
25.
SonnichsenR. C.1988. Advocacy evaluation: A model for internal evaluation offices. Evaluation and Program Planning.11 (2), 141–148.
26.
StufflebeamD. (1994, October). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. Evaluation Practice, 15 (3), 321–338.
27.
VanderplaatM. (1995). Beyond technique: Issues in evaluating for empowerment. Evaluation, 1 (1), 81–96.
28.
WadsworthY. (1993). What Is participatory action research?Melbourne, Australia, Action Research Issues Association, Inc.
29.
WeissC. H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In LynnL. E.Jr. (Ed)., Knowledge and policy: The uncertain Connection (pp. 23–81). Washington, D. C., National Academy of Sciences.
30.
WeissH. B.GreeneJ. C. (1992, February/May). An empowerment partnership for family support and education programs and evaluations. Family Science Review, 5 (1,2), 145–163.
31.
WhyteW. F. (Ed.), (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
