Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Forss, K.
Right arrow Articles by Carlsson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Process Use of Evaluations

Types of Use that Precede Lessons Learned and Feedback

Kim Forss

Andante - Tools for Thinking, Sweden, kim.forss{at}mailbox.swipnet.se

Claus C. Rebien

COWI Ltd, Denmark, ccr{at}cowi.dk

Jerker Carlsson

Among practitioners, it is often said that there is much that is useful that takes place during the evaluation process. The literature on the utilization of evaluation, however, mostly refers to lessons learned and recommendations implemented after the evaluation. This article seeks to contribute to the debate by exploring further the process use of evaluations — the evaluation use that takes place before lessons learned are generated and feedback processes are initiated.

Five different types of process use are identified: learning to learn; developing networks; creating shared understanding; strengthening the project; and boosting morale.

Most resources in an evaluation process are spent in preparation and implementation. Very little is spent on feedback. A conventional way of improving evaluation use would be to shift resources from the preparation and implementation stages to the feedback stage. The article argues that in general, shifting resources from preparation and implementation to disseminating results would jeopardize the quality of the entire evaluation because it would ceteris paribus reduce the design, data collection and analytical quality. Instead it is argued that evaluation commissioners and evaluators should work explicitly to increase process use as the most cost-effective way of strengthening the overall utility of an evaluation.

Key Words: empowerment evaluation • evaluation utility • learning • organizational change • participatory evaluation

Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 1, 29-45 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1358902002008001515


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
EvaluationHome page
J. C. Suarez-Herrera, J. Springett, and C. Kagan
Critical Connections between Participatory Evaluation, Organizational Learning and Intentional Change in Pluralistic Organizations
Evaluation, July 1, 2009; 15(3): 321 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
P. A. Smits and F. Champagne
An Assessment of the Theoretical Underpinnings of Practical Participatory Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation, December 1, 2008; 29(4): 427 - 442.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
T. A. Abma and G. A.M. Widdershoven
Evaluation and/as Social Relation
Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 209 - 225.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
S. Taut
Studying Self-Evaluation Capacity Building in a Large International Development Organization
American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2007; 28(1): 45 - 59.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
A. Balthasar
The Effects of Institutional Design on the Utilization of Evaluation: Evidenced Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Evaluation, July 1, 2006; 12(3): 353 - 371.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
K. Forss, S.-E. Kruse, S. Taut, and E. Tenden
Chasing a Ghost?: An Essay on Participatory Evaluation and Capacity Development
Evaluation, January 1, 2006; 12(1): 128 - 144.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
M. Rolfsen and H. Torvatn
How to 'Get Through': Communication Challenges in Formative Evaluation
Evaluation, July 1, 2005; 11(3): 297 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
M. Lehtonen
OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme: Accountability (f)or Learning?
Evaluation, April 1, 2005; 11(2): 169 - 188.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
J. Halliday, S. N. M. Asthana, and S. Richardson
Evaluating Partnership: The Role of Formal Assessment Tools
Evaluation, July 1, 2004; 10(3): 285 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
H. Alexander
Health-Service Evaluations: Should We Expect the Results to Change Practice?
Evaluation, October 1, 2003; 9(4): 405 - 414.
[Abstract] [PDF]