|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Approaches to Participation in EvaluationSome Conditions for Implementation
Béatrice Plottu
National Institute of Horticulture and Landscape, France, beatrice.plottu{at}agrocampus-ouest.fr
Eric Plottu
National Agency for the Environment and Energy Management, France, eric.plottu{at}ademe.fr
Approaches to participation in evaluation rely on the principle of active participation by major stakeholders, including less organized groups, as fundamental to good evaluation practice. This process offers a number of advantages but implementation requires certain prerequisites. The goal of our article is to weigh up the advantages of participation and to examine the conditions necessary for approaches to participation in evaluation to achieve their objectives.
Key Words: approaches to participation in evaluation • democracy • empowerment • participation • public policies
References
- Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Canadian International Development Agency (n.d.) `Participatory Appraisal Techniques', URL (consulted Jan. 2009): http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/prnEn/EMA-218123623-NP9
- Cousins, J.B. and L. Earl (1992) `The Case for Participatory Evaluation', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14(4): 397-418.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Cousins, J.B. and E. Whitmore (1998) `Framing Participatory Evaluation', New Directions for Evaluation 80: 5-23.
- Eckley, N. (2001) `Designing Effective Assessments: The Role of Participation, Science and Governance, and Focus', report of a workshop co-organized by the European Environment Agency and the Global Environmental Assessment Project, Copenhagen, 1-3 March. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency Environmental issue report 26.
- Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (1998). `Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review'. Institute for Development Studies Working Paper 70, University of Sussex.
- Fetterman, D.M. (2001) Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Fetterman, D.M. and A. Wandersman (2005) Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Publications.
- Fetterman, D.M. and A. Wandersman (2007) `Empowerment Evaluation: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow', American Journal of Evaluation 28(2): 179-98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (eds) ( 1996) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Floc'hlay, B. and E. Plottu (1998) `Democratic Evaluation: From Empowerment Evaluation to Public Decision-Making', Evaluation 4(3): 261-77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Greene, J.C. (2002) `Towards Evaluation as a Public Craft and Evaluator as Stewards of the Public Good or on Listening Well', presentation at the 2002 Australian Evaluation Society International Conference, Oct./Nov.
- Hanberger, A. (2006) `Evaluation of and for Democracy', Evaluation 12(1): 17-37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- House, E.R. (2005) `Promising Practices: The Many Forms of Democratic Evaluation', The Evaluation Exchange (The Harvard Family Research Project's evaluation periodical, Cambridge, MA) 11(3): 7.
- Lehtonen, M. (2006). `Deliberative Democracy, Participation and OECD Peer Reviews of Environmental Policies', American Journal of Evaluation 27(2): 185-200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Miller, R.L. and R. Campbell (2006) `Taking Stock of Empowerment Evaluation', American Journal of Evaluation 27(3): 296-319.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Nabasa, J., G. Rutwara, F. Walker and C. Were (1995) Participatory Rural Appraisal: Practical Experiences. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.
- Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilisation-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. London: SAGE.
- Plottu, E. (1999) `Environnement: principe et méthodologie de l'evaluation hiérarchique. Un cadre pour le développement durable et l'analyse de projets, doctoral thesis. Université de Rennes 1, 5 Jan.
- Plottu, E. and B. Plottu (2007) `The Concept of Total Economic Value of Environment: A Reconsideration within a Hierarchical Rationality', Ecological Economics 61: 52-61.[CrossRef]
- Pollitt, C. (1999) `Stunted by Stakeholders? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation', Public Policy and Administration 14(2): 77-90.[Free Full Text]
- Roy, B. (1996) Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Analysis. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Roy, B. (1999) `Decision-Aiding Today: What should we Expect?', in T. Gal, T. Stewart and T. Hanne (eds) Advances in Multicriteria Decision Making: MCDM Models, Algorithms, Theory, and Applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Rutherford, F.P. (2000) `Strengthening Citizen Participation in Evaluating Community Development: The Case of the EZ/EC Learning Initiative in Mc Dowell County, West Virginia', in M. Estrella et al. (eds) Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, pp. 124-36. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
- Tandon, R. and W. Fernandes (1984) Participatory Evaluation: Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Indian Institute for Social Research.
- Viveret, P. (1989) L'évaluation des politiques et des actions publiques: propositions en vue de l'évaluation du revenu minimum d'insertion. Rapport au premier ministre. Paris: La Documentation française.
- Warren, M.E. (1993) `Can Participatory Democracy Produce Better Selves? Psychological Dimensions of Habermas `s Discursive Model of Democracy', Political Psychology 14(2): 209-34.[CrossRef]
Evaluation, Vol. 15, No. 3,
343-359 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389009106357
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
|
|
