Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The evaluation discipline has long been put at the service of liberal democratic values. But contemporary evaluation practice is threatened by vested interests, western democracy is under stress and internationalization has propelled evaluation towards illiberal and patrimonial states. What is to be done in contexts where democracy is absent and/or evaluation has been captured by powerful interests whether globally, within countries or within organizations? Are existing democratic evaluation approaches still relevant? Is it time to try something new? This article reviews the evidence and recommends adoption of a progressive evaluation model designed to complement, update and renew existing democratic and social justice evaluation approaches.

Keywords

democracy evaluation approaches vested interests independent evaluation professional autonomy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alkin

(2012) Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists’ Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Brett

(2009) Reconstructing Development Theory: International Equality, Institutional Reform and Social Emancipation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brookings Institution (2015) Inequality. URL (consulted 20 February 2015): http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/inequality.

Chelimsky

Shadish

(1997) Evaluation for the 21^st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cummings

Brown

O’Connor

(2007) The cigarette controversy. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16(6): 1070–6.

Donaldson

(2007) Program Theory-Driven Evaluation Science: Strategies and Applications. New York: Psychology Press.

Dunn

(1997) The experimenting society, essays in honour of Donald T. Campbell. Policy Studies Review Annual 11. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Fetterman

(1994) Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice 15(1): 1–15.

Forbes (2011) The world’s billionaires. Forbes Magazine, 9 March.

10.

Freedom House (2014) Freedom in the world: electoral democracies. URL (consulted 20 February 2015): https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Electoral%20Democracy%20Numbers%2C%20FIW%201989-2014.pdf.

11.

Freedom House (2014) Freedom in the world 2014. URL (consulted 20 February 2015): https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2014#.VOe8n8bsdel.

12.

Fukuyama

Bloom

(1989) The end of history? National Affairs 16: 3–18.

13.

Goldenberg

(2013) Conservative group spends up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change. The Guardian, 20 December.

14.

Greene

(1997) Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Practice 18(1): 25–35.

15.

Griffith

Montrosse-Moorhead

(2014) Revisiting truth, beauty and justice: evaluating with validity in the 21^st Century. New Directions for Evaluation 142: 17–30.

16.

Hogan

(2007) The historical development of program evaluation. Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development 2(4): 1–14.

17.

House

(1991) Evaluation and social justice: where are we? In: McLaughlin

Phillips

(eds) Evaluation and Education at Quarter Century, National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 233–46.

18.

House

(2005) The many forms of democratic evaluation. The Evaluation Exchange 11(3).

19.

House

(2008) Blowback, consequences of evaluation for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 29(4): 416–26.

20.

House

(2013) Evaluation’s conflicted future. In: Donaldson

(ed.) The Future of Evaluation in Society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

21.

House

Howe

(1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

International Monetary Fund (2014) Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, IMF Policy Paper.

23.

Kirkhart

(2015) Through a cultural lens: reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. In: Hood

Hopson

Frierson

(eds) The Role of Culture and Cultural Context. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

24.

MacDonald

(1976) Evaluation and the control of education. In: Tawney

(ed.) Curriculum Evaluation Roday: Trends and Implications. London: Macmillan, 125–34.

25.

MacDonald

(1978) Democracy and evaluation. Public Address at the University of Alberta Faculty of Education, Edmonton, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.

26.

MacDonald

(1993) A political classification of evaluation studies in education. In: Hammersley

(ed.) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: SAGE.

27.

MacDonald

Kushner

(2005) Democratic evaluation. In: Mathison

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Evaluation. London: SAGE, 109–13.

28.

Mertens

Wilson

(2012) Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: Guilford.

29.

My M&E (2013) 2015 declared as the International Year of Evaluation. URL (consulted 20 February 2015): http://mymande.org/evalyear/Declaring_2015_as_the_International_Year_of_Evaluation.

30.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014) Inclusive growth: making it happen. URL (consulted 20 February 2015): http://www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/inclusive-growth-making-it-happen.htm.

31.

Olinto

Saavedra

(2012) An overview of global inequality trends. Inequality in Focus 1(1).

32.

Patton

(2008) Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Picciotto

(2005) The evaluation of policy coherence for development. Evaluation 11(3): 311–30.

34.

Picciotto

(2011) The logic of evaluation professionalism. Evaluation 17(2): 1–16.

35.

Scriven

(2002) Evaluation ideologies, evaluation models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services 49: 249–78.

36.

Simons

(2010) Democratic evaluation: theory and practice. Paper prepared for the: Virtual Evaluation Conference, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

37.

Spence

(2011) The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

38.

Stern

(2013) Evaluation in an evolving democratic setting. Connections, European Evaluation Society Newsletter (Special Edition), 5 June.

39.

Stiglitz

(2013) The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Threatens Our Future. New York: WW Norton.

40.

Summer

(2013) Where do the poor live? World Development 40(5): 865–87.

41.

Vedung

(2010) Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation 16(3): 263−77.

42.

Williams

(2013) Systemic thinking in evaluation: three core concepts. Connections, European Evaluation Society Newsletter, 7 June.

Democratic evaluation for the 21st century

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References