Performance measurement systems are cast as significant responses to contemporary public demands for government accountability for social spending and social programs. Performance measurements are then critiqued as inadequate measures of social program quality, as inadequate representations of program quality, and as at odds with evaluative processes that advance the ideals of deliberative democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abma, Tineke A. (1997) ‘Playing With/In Plurality. Revitalizing Realities and Relationships in Rotterdam’, Evaluation3(1): 25–48.
2.
Barber, Benjamin (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
Chen, Huey-Tse (1990) ‘Issues in Constructing Program Theory’, in L. Bickman (ed.) Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Evaluation 47, pp. 7–18. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Cronbach, Lee J. and Associates (1980) Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Diversi, Marcelo (1998) ‘Glimpses of Street Life: Representing Lived Experience through Short Stories’, Qualitative Inquiry4: 131–147.
6.
Goodyear, Leslie K. (1997) ‘“A Circle that it's Time to Open”: Using Performance as a Representation of a Participatory Evaluation’, unpublished masters thesis, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
7.
Greene, Jennifer C. (1998) ‘Qualitative, Interpretive Evaluation’, in A.J. Reynolds and H.J. Walberg (eds) Evaluation Research for Educational Productivity, Advances in Educational Productivity 7, pp. 135–154. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
8.
House, Ernest R. and Kenneth R. Howe (1998) ‘Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago, IL, November.
9.
Mathie, Alison (1994) ‘Evaluation for Accountability’, qualifying doctoral exam, Department of Human Service Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
10.
Newcomer, Kathryn E. (1997) ‘Using Performance Measurement to Improve Programs’, in K.E. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75, pp. 5–14. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998) Performance Measures of Effectiveness. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
12.
Packwood, A. and P. Sikes (1996) ‘Adopting a Postmodern Approach to Research’, Qualitative Studies in Education9: 335–345.
13.
Paget, Marianne (1995) ‘Performing the Text’, in J. Van Maanen (ed.) Representation in Ethnography, pp. 222–244. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Schorr, Lisbeth B. (1997) Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighbourhoods to Rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
15.
Schwandt, Thomas A. (1998) ‘How We Think about Morality: Implications for Evaluation Practice’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago, IL, November.
16.
Shadish, William , Thomas D. Cook and Laura Leviton (1992) Foundations of Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Stake, Robert E. (1997) ‘The Fleeting Discernment of Quality’, in L. Mabry (ed.) Evaluation and the Postmodern Dilemma. Advances in Program Evaluation 3, pp. 41–60. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
18.
Van Maanen, John (1995) ‘An End to Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography’, in J. Van Maanen (ed.) Representation in Ethnography, pp. 1–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Weiss, Carol H. (1998) Evaluation, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
Wholey, Joseph S. and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1997) ‘Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results’, in K.E. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75, pp. 91–98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
