There are many options for elaborating democratic evaluations. This article discusses evaluation of and for democracy, and in particular three broad democratic evaluation orientations: elitist democratic evaluation (EDE), participatory democratic evaluation (PDE) and discursive democratic evaluation (DDE). The archetypes differ regarding, for example, evaluation focus, inclusion of stakeholders, dialogue and the role of the evaluator. The three orientations promote certain democratic values and are linked to the elitist, participatory or discursive notions of democracy respectively. It is argued that there is a need to become more conscious of how evaluations not labelled democratic can influence democracy and what responsibility democratic evaluators have. If commissioners and evaluators become more aware of the different democratic orientations evaluations may have, they will be better able to decide which evaluation to commission and undertake.
Albaek, Erik (1996) ‘Why All This Evaluation? Theoretical Notes and Empirical Observations on the Functions and Growth of Evaluation in Denmark as Illustrative Case’ , Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation11(2): 1–34 .
2.
Birch, Anthony (2001) The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. London: Routledge .
3.
Bjrk, Peder , Gran Bostedt and Hans Johansson (2003) Governance. Lund: Studentlitteratur .
4.
Campbell, Donald Thomas (1988) Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
5.
Cousins, J. Bradley and Elisabeth Whitmore (1998) ‘Framing Participatory Evaluation’ , New Directions for Evaluation80 (Winter): 5–23 .
6.
Cunningham, Frank (2002) Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge .
7.
Dahl, Robert (2001) ‘Democracy’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences,vol. 5, pp. 3405–3408. Amsterdam: Elsevier .
8.
Day, Patricia and Rudolf Klein (1987) Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London: Tavistock .
9.
Dewey, John and James H. Tufts (1985) Ethics, 2nd edn, in John Dewey: The Later Works, vol. 7. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press ; 1st publ. 1932.
10.
Dryzek, John S. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
11.
Dryzek, John S. (1996) Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University Press .
12.
Dryzek, John S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
13.
Elster, J. (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
14.
Farazmand, Ali (1999a) ‘Globalization and Public Administration’ , Public Administration Review59(6): 509–522 .
15.
Farazmand, Ali (1999b) ‘The Elite Question: Toward a Normative Elite Theory of Organization’ , Administration and Society31(3): 321–360 .
16.
Fetterman, David (2001) Foundation of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE .
17.
Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
18.
Green, Philip (1985) Retrieving Democracy: In Search of Civic Equality. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld .
19.
Gutmann, Amy (1980) Liberal Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
20.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
21.
Habermas, J. (1996) ‘Three Normative Models of Democracy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
22.
Hanberger, Anders (2001) ‘Policy and Program Evaluation, Civil Society, and Democracy’ , American Journal of Evaluation22(2): 211–228 .
23.
Hanberger, Anders (2003) ‘Democratic Implications of Public Organizations, I’ , Public Organization Review: A Global Journal3(1): 29–54 .
24.
Hanberger, Anders (2005) ‘Evaluating Democratic Governance’ , paper presented at the joint conference of CES and AEA in Toronto.
25.
House, Ernest R. and Kenneth R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
26.
Karvonen, Lauri (2003) Statsskick: Att bygga demokrati. Stockholm: SNS .
27.
Kelly, R. M. (2000) ‘A Feminist Democratic Civil Society and the Issue of Violence’ , paper delivered at the International Political Science Association in Quebec, Canada, 31 July–5 August.
28.
McCoy, C. and J. Playford (1967) Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism. New York: Crowell .
29.
MacDonald, Barry (1976) ‘Evaluation and the Control of Education’, in D. A. Tawney (ed.) Curriculum Evaluation Today: Trends and Implications, pp. 125–136. Schools Council Research Studies. London: Macmillan .
30.
MacDonald, Barry (1978) ‘Democracy and Evaluation’ , public address at the University of Alberta Faculty of Education, 17 Oct.
31.
McTaggart, Robin (1989) ‘Bureaucratic Rationality and the Self-Educating Profession: The Problem of Teacher Privatism’ , Journal of Curriculum Studies21(4): 345–361 .
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1995) Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press .
34.
Mertens, Donna, M. (1999) ‘Inclusive Evaluation: Implications of Transformative Theory for Evaluation’ , American Journal of Evaluation20(1): 1–14 .
35.
Newman, Michael (2000) ‘Introduction’, in Catherine Hoskyns and Michael Newman (eds) Democratizing the European Union: Issues for the Twenty-First Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press .
36.
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press .
37.
Pierre, Jon and Guy Peters (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. New York and Basingstoke: Macmillan .
38.
Potter, David (1997) Democratization. Cambridge: Polity Press .
39.
Power, Michael (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
40.
Premfors, Rune (1999) ‘Sveriges demokratisering: Ett historiskt-institutionalistiskt perspektiv’, SCORE's rapportserie1999: 3. Stockholm.
41.
Preskill, Hallie and Rosalie T. Torres (2000) ‘The Learning Dimension of Evaluation Use’, in Valerie J. Caracelli and Hallie Preskill (eds) ‘The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use’, New Direction for Evaluation 88: 25–37.
42.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
43.
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
44.
Rose, Nicholas and P. Miller (1992) ‘Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government’ , British Journal of Sociology43(2): 173–205 .
Ryan, Katherine (2004) ‘Serving Public Interests in Educational Accountability: Alternative Approaches to Evaluation’ , American Journal of Evaluation25(4): 443–460 .
47.
Ryan, Katherine E. and L. DeStefano , eds (2000) ‘Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialog and Deliberation’, New Directions for Evaluation85-85.
48.
Schmidt, V. H. (2001) ‘Social Justice’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 21, pp. 14338–14341. Amsterdam: Elsevier .
49.
Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper .
50.
Stake, Robert E. (2000) ‘A Modest Commitment to the Promotion of Democracy’ , New Directions for Evaluation85: 97–106 .
51.
Vedung, Evert (2004) ‘Utvärderingsbljans former och drivkrafter’ ,paper presented at the first Swedish Evaluation Conference (SVUF), Stockholm.
52.
Weiss, Carol H. (1973) ‘Where Politics and Evaluation Research Meet’ , Evaluation1: 37–45 .
53.
Weiss, Carol H. (1977) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath .
