This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Laughlin, R. Articles by Broadbent, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Redesigning Fourth generation Evaluation

An Evaluation Model for the Public-sector Reforms in the UK?

Department of Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex

Jane Broadbent

Department of Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex

This article's primary concern is with clarifying and, more importantly, developing the nature of 'fourth generation' evaluation coming from the work of Guba and Lincoln (I989). The suggested developments to this evaluatory model are intended to make the approach somewhat more practical and relevant to specific evaluatory concerns. Guba and Lincoln's 'fourth generation' evaluatory process, suitably developed, is advanced as providing the wide-ranging approach for this evaluation. This article describes the nature of this approach, which relies on and encourages all stakeholders' critically discussing the claims, concerns and issues on the focus of interest, leading to action outcomes. By probing into this approach, a number of problems in its design are highlighted. Guba and Lincoln's proposed model is enriched by suggesting possible solutions to the challenges offered by the solipsism of their approach, the implicit privileging of the client and evaluator, the underspecification of the processes of discourse and the accountability of the processes.

Evaluation, Vol. 2, No. 4, 431-451 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/135638909600200406


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Tetley, G. Grant, and S. Davies Using Narratives to Understand Older People's Decision-Making Processes Qual Health Res, September 1, 2009; 19(9): 1273 - 1283. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Broadbent and R. Laughlin Striving for Excellence in Public Service Delivery: Experiences from an Analysis of the Private Finance Initiative Public Policy and Administration, October 1, 2004; 19(4): 82 - 99. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Sanderson Evaluation in Complex Policy Systems Evaluation, October 1, 2000; 6(4): 433 - 454. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Gregory Problematizing Participation: A Critical Review of Approaches to Participation in Evaluation Theory Evaluation, April 1, 2000; 6(2): 179 - 199. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. J. Huebner and S. C. Betts Examining Fourth Generation Evaluation: Application to Positive Youth Development Evaluation, July 1, 1999; 5(3): 340 - 358. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Dabinett and T. Richardson The European Spatial Approach: The Role of Power and Knowledge in Strategic Planning and Policy Evaluation Evaluation, April 1, 1999; 5(2): 220 - 236. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Pollitt Stunted by Stakeholders? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation Public Policy and Administration, April 1, 1999; 14(2): 77 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Gilroy, P. Long, M. Rangecroft, and T. Tricker The Evaluation of Course Quality Through a Service Template Evaluation, January 1, 1999; 5(1): 80 - 91. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Redfern Evaluation: Drawing comparisons or achieving consensus? Journal of Research in Nursing, January 1, 1998; 3(6): 464 - 474. [Abstract] [PDF]