A socio-political framework for evaluability assessment of participatory evaluations of partnerships: Making sense of the power differentials in programs that involve the state and civil society
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2012
A socio-political framework for evaluability assessment of participatory evaluations of partnerships: Making sense of the power differentials in programs that involve the state and civil society
Jointly conducted with a coalition of HIV/AIDS community-based organizations (CBOs), this evaluability assessment sought to better understand the factors that affect the feasibility of a participatory program evaluation to be undertaken in partnership with the CBOs’ non-governmental-organization members and public-health agencies. Participatory evaluations and partnerships are grounded in social and institutional authority structures that unavoidably influence researchers and evaluators. The construction of a theoretical framework for socio-political evaluability assessment of participatory evaluations is a necessary precondition for the coalition’s members to engage effectively in evaluation research with other partners.
Analyse et renforcement des pratiques évaluatives auprès des organismes communautaires – ARPEOC (2005) Analyse des pratiques d’évaluation dans les organismes communautaires [Research Report]. Montréal: Services aux collectivités de l’UQAM.
2.
BeaudryJGauthierB (1992) L’évaluation de programme. In: GauthierB (ed.) Recherche sociale: de la problématique à la collecte de données, 2nd edn.Sainte-Foy: PUQ, 425–52.
3.
BurtonP (2009) Conceptual, theoretical & practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation15(3): 263–84.
4.
CousinsJBWhitmoreE (1998) Framing participatory evaluation. In: WhitmoreE (ed.) Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 5–23.
5.
DetienneMVernantJP (1975) Les ruses de l’intelligence. La mètis des Grecs. Paris: Flammarion.
6.
EllisCBochnerAP (2003) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 199–258.
7.
FriedbergE (1972) L’analyse sociologique des organisations. POUR28: 1–120.
8.
FriedbergE (1997) Le pouvoir et la règle. Paris: du Seuil.
9.
FriedbergE (2000) Going Beyond the Either/Or. Journal of Management and Governance4(2): 35–52.
10.
FriedbergE (2005a) La culture ‘nationale’ n’est pas tout le social. Réponse à Philippe d’Iribarne. Revue Française de Sociologie46(1): 177–93.
11.
FriedbergE (2005b) Qu’apporte la sociologie au management des organisations?Seminar at the Centre Humanismes Gestions et Mondialisation, Hautes Études Commerciales, Montreal, 27 April 2005.
12.
GubaEGLincolnYS (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
13.
HouseER (2004) The role of the evaluator in a political world. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation19(2): 1–16.
14.
HouseERHoweKR (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
JacobSRothmayrC (2009) L’analyse des politiques publiques. In: RiddeVDagenaisC (ed.) Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme. Montréal: PUM, 69–86.
16.
JalbertYPinaultLRenaudGZúñigaR (1997) Epsilon. A Self-Evaluation Guide for Community Organizations. Montreal: Coalition des Organismes de Lutte Contre le Sida (COCQ-sida).
LaperrièreH (2009a) Une pratique réflexive collective de production de connaissances dans la lutte communautaire contre le VIH/sida au Québec. Nouvelles Pratiques Sociales22(1): 77–91.
19.
LaperrièreH (2009b) Les inégalités entre le local et le national: le cas de l’évaluation qualitative de la lutte communautaire contre le VIH/sida au Québec. Recherches Qualitatives28(3): 88–111.
20.
LaperrièreHZúñigaR (2006) Sociopolitical determinants of an AIDS prevention program: multiple actors and vertical relationships of control and influence. Policy, Politics and Nursing Practice7(2): 125–35.
21.
LatourB (2005) Re-assembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
LevitonLCKhanLKRogDDawkinsNCottonD (2010) Evaluability assessment to improve public health policies, programs, and practices. Annual Review of Public Health31: 213–33.
23.
MantouraPGendronSPotvinL (2007) The space of participatory research: a tool for implementing innovative and health-promoting local socio-sanitary alliances. Health and Place13: 440–51.
24.
MarchJG (2004a) Le carcan de la rationalité: laisser coexister des logiques différentes. In: FriedbergE (ed.) La décision [Multimedia Work]. Collection « Questions d’organisation ». Paris: Banlieues Media Editions.
25.
MarchJG (2004b) On ne sais pas ce qu’on veut: comment gérer l’instabilité des préférences: l’hypocrisie. In: FriedbergE (ed.) La décision [Multimedia Work]. Collection « Questions d’organisation ». Paris: Banlieues Media Editions.
26.
MeeresSLFisherRGerrardN (1995) Evaluability assessment of a community-based program. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation10(1): 103–21.
27.
MercerSLGoelV (1994) Program evaluation in the absence of goals: a comprehensive approach to the evaluation of a population-based breast cancer screening Program. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation9(1): 98–112.
28.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
MintzbergHAhlstrandBLampelJ (1999) Safari en pays stratégie. L’exploration des grands courants de la pensée stratégique. Paris: Village Mondial.
30.
PlottuBPlottuE (2009) Approches to participation in evaluation: some conditions to implementation. Evaluation15(3): 343–59.
31.
PolanyiM (1964) Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.
32.
Public Health Agency of Canada (2004) The Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada. Strengthening Federal Action in the Canadian Response to HIV/AIDS. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
RiddeV (2006) Suggestions d’améliorations d’un cadre conceptuel de l’évaluation participative. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation21(2): 1–23.
36.
RootmanISteinmetzB (2002) Groupe de travail européen sur l’évaluation de la promotion de la santé. Bulletin de recherche sur les politiques de santé1(3): 8–9.
37.
SpringettJ (2001) Participatory approaches to evaluation in health promotion. In: RootmanIGoodstadtMHyndmanBMcQueenDVPotvinLSpringettJ. (eds) Evaluation in Health Promotion. Principles and Perspectives. Copenhague: WHO Regional Publications, European Series, no. 92, 83–105.
38.
Suárez-HerreraJSpringettJKaganC (2009) Critical connections between participatory evaluation, organizational learning and intentional change in pluralistic organizations. Evaluation15(3): 321–42.
39.
ThurstonWEPotvinL (2003) Evaluability assessment: a tool for incorporating evaluation in social change programmes. Evaluation9(4): 453–69.
40.
ThurstonWEGrahamJHatfieldJ (2003) Evaluability assessment: a catalyst for program change and improvement. Evaluation & the Health Professionals26(2): 206–21.
41.
WendhausenA (2002) O duplo sentido do controle social: (des)caminhos da participação em saúde. Itajaí: Univali.
42.
WholeyJS (1981) Using evaluation to improve program performance. In: LevinRASolomonMAHelisternG-MWollmannH (eds) Evaluation Research and Practice: Comparative and International Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
43.
WholeyJSHatryHPNewcomerKE (1994) Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In: WholeyJSHatryHPNewcomerKE (eds) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 15–39.
44.
ZúñigaRLulyMH (eds) (2005) Savoir-faire et savoir-dire: un guide d’évaluation communautaire. Montréal: COCQ-sida.
