Dialogue in evaluation is presented as a fundamental value commitment to engagement, particularly engagement with the relational, moral and political dimensions of our contexts and our craft. Because it is at root a relational and communicative activity, effective dialogue in evaluation is inclusive of all legitimate stakeholder interests and involves interactions that are respectful, reciprocal and equitable. Effective dialogue, in turn, can enhance the democratizing potential of evaluation.
Abma, T. (1998) ‘Text in an Evaluative Context: Writing for Dialogue’, Evaluation4: 434–454.
2.
Burbules, N.C. and S. Rice (1991) ‘Dialoguing Across Differences: Continuing the Conversation’, Harvard Educational Review61: 393–416.
3.
Chelimsky, E. (1997) ‘The Political Environment for Evaluation and What it Means for the Development of the Field’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Coulter, D. (1999) ‘The Epic and the Novel: Dialogism and Teacher Research’, Educational Researcher28(3): 4–13.
5.
Everitt, A. (1996) ‘Developing Critical Evaluation’, Evaluation2: 173–188.
6.
Greene, J. C. (1997) ‘Evaluation as Advocacy’, Evaluation Practice18: 25–35.
7.
Greene, J. C. (2000) ‘Challenges in Practicing Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 13–26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
8.
House, E. R. (1980) Evaluating with Validity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (2000) ‘Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 3–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Howe, D. (1994) ‘Modernity, Postmodernity and Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work24: 513–532.
12.
Karlsson, O. (1996) ‘A Critical Dialogue in Evaluation: How can the Interaction between Evaluation and Politics be Tackled?’, Evaluation2: 405–416.
13.
Mark, M. M., G. H. Henry and G. Julnes (2000) Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Rallis, S. F. and G. B. Rossman (2000) ‘Dialogue for Learning: Evaluator as Critical Friend’, in R. K. Hopson (ed.) How and Why Language Matters in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation 86, pp. 81–92. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Robinson, V. (1993) Problem-Based Methodology: Research for the Improvement of Practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16.
Ryan, K. E. and L. DeStefano (eds) (2000) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Ryan, K. E., J. C. Greene, Y. Lincoln, S. Mathison and D. Mertens (1998) ‘Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Approaches in Evaluation Practice’, American Journal of Evaluation19: 101–122.
18.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997) ‘Evaluation as Practical Hermeneutics’, Evaluation3: 69–83.
19.
Schwandt, T. A. (forthcoming) Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
Whitmore, E. (1991) ‘Evaluation and Empowerment: It's the Process that Counts’, Empowerment and Family Support Networking Bulletin (Cornell University Empowerment Project) 2: 1–7.
