Dialogue is today commonplace in evaluation discourse. It represents an ambition to involve different stakeholders in an open and power-free exchange of opinions and ideas about what is being evaluated. The aim of this article is to discuss how to manage dialogue in practice. An evaluation case is used to illustrate how the evaluator manages a dialogue in different phases of the evaluation process. In order to handle the, sometimes, difficult situation resulting from many different views on the subject, the evaluator developed various methods, some new and innovative, to make the exchange of ideas possible. The article argues that dialogue in evaluation needs to be adjustable to different situations and the needs of the participants.
Bakhtin, M. (1981) ‘The Dialogic Imagination’, in Michael Holquist (ed.) Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
2.
Bateson, G. (1972) ‘The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication’, in G. Bateson (ed.) Steps to an Ecology of Mind.San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
3.
Bohm, D. (1996) On Dialogue.London: Routledge.
4.
Buber, M. (1961) Between Man and Man. London: Collins.
5.
Buber, M. (1970) I and You.Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
6.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975) Truth and Method.London: Sheed & Ward.
7.
Gallagher, S. (1992) Hermeneutics and Education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
8.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: Sage.
9.
Harmon, M. M. and R. T. Mayer (1986) Organization Theory for Public Administration. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
10.
House, E. R. (1983) ‘How We Think About Evaluation’, in E. R. House (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation 19, pp. 5–26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
House, E. and K. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research.London: Sage.
12.
Kaminsky, A. (1999) ‘Myth, Meaning, Multiplicity, and Metaphor’, in T. A. Abma (ed.) Telling Tales: On Evaluation and Narrative, Advances in Program Evaluation 6, pp. 151–165. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
13.
Karlsson, O. (1998) ‘Socratic Dialogue in the Swedish Political Context’, in T. A. Schwandt (ed.) Scandinavian Perspectives on the Evaluator's Role in Informing Social Policy, New Directions for Evaluation 77, pp. 21–38. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Karlsson, O. (2002) Report on an Evaluation of Social Development Program in Russia.Eskilstuna: Mälardalen University.
15.
Kincheloe, J. and P. McLaren (1998) ‘Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research, pp. 260–299. London: Sage.
16.
MacDonald, B. (1987) ‘Evaluation and the Control of Education’, in R. Murphy and H. Torrance (eds) Issues and Methods in Evaluation.London: Paul Chapman.
17.
Maranhão, T. (1986) Therapeutic Discourse and Socratic Dialogue, pp. 36–48. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
18.
Mark, M., G. Henry and G. Julnes (2000) Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Reason, P. (1998) ‘Three Approaches to Participatory Inquiry’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, pp. 261–291. London: Sage.
21.
Ricoeur, P. (1991) ‘The Conflict of Interpretations: Debate with Hans-George Gadamer’, in Mario J. Valdes (ed.) A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination.New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
22.
Ryan, K. and Johnson, T. (2000) ‘Democratizing Evaluation: Meanings and Methods from Practice’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 39–50. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Scriven, M. (1991) Evaluation Thesaurus. London: Sage.
24.
Stufflebeam, L., C. McCormick, R. Brinkerhoff and C. Nelson (1985) Conducting Educational Needs Assessments.Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
25.
Torres, R. T., S. P. Stone, D. L. Butkus, B. B. Hook, J. Casey and S. A. Arens (2000) ‘Dialogue and Reflection in a Collaborative Evaluation: Stakeholder and Evaluator Voices’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 27–38. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Weinsheimer, J.-C. (1985) Gadamer's Hermeneutics: A Reading of Truth and Method.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
Weinsheimer, J.-C. (1991) ‘Gadamer's Metaphorical Hermeneutics’, in H. J. Silverman (ed.) Gadamer and Hermeneutics.New York: Routledge.
