Dialogue in Evaluation: A Relational Perspective

Evaluation

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 181-187

  Greene, Jennifer C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

democratic force; engagement; inclusion; reform initiative elementary school; respect

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011647665     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/135638900100700203     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Abma, T. (1998) ‘Text in an Evaluative Context: Writing for Dialogue’, Evaluation4: 434–454.
2. Burbules, N.C. and S. Rice (1991) ‘Dialoguing Across Differences: Continuing the Conversation’, Harvard Educational Review61: 393–416.
3. Chelimsky, E. (1997) ‘The Political Environment for Evaluation and What it Means for the Development of the Field’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Coulter, D. (1999) ‘The Epic and the Novel: Dialogism and Teacher Research’, Educational Researcher28(3): 4–13.
5. Everitt, A. (1996) ‘Developing Critical Evaluation’, Evaluation2: 173–188.
6. Greene, J. C. (1997) ‘Evaluation as Advocacy’, Evaluation Practice18: 25–35.
7. Greene, J. C. (2000) ‘Challenges in Practicing Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 13–26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
8. House, E. R. (1980) Evaluating with Validity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9. House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (2000) ‘Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’, in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85, pp. 3–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Howe, D. (1994) ‘Modernity, Postmodernity and Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work24: 513–532.
12. Karlsson, O. (1996) ‘A Critical Dialogue in Evaluation: How can the Interaction between Evaluation and Politics be Tackled?’, Evaluation2: 405–416.
13. Mark, M. M., G. H. Henry and G. Julnes (2000) Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. Rallis, S. F. and G. B. Rossman (2000) ‘Dialogue for Learning: Evaluator as Critical Friend’, in R. K. Hopson (ed.) How and Why Language Matters in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation 86, pp. 81–92. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15. Robinson, V. (1993) Problem-Based Methodology: Research for the Improvement of Practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16. Ryan, K. E. and L. DeStefano (eds) (2000) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation 85. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. Ryan, K. E., J. C. Greene, Y. Lincoln, S. Mathison and D. Mertens (1998) ‘Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Approaches in Evaluation Practice’, American Journal of Evaluation19: 101–122.
18. Schwandt, T. A. (1997) ‘Evaluation as Practical Hermeneutics’, Evaluation3: 69–83.
19. Schwandt, T. A. (forthcoming) Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Whitmore, E. (1991) ‘Evaluation and Empowerment: It's the Process that Counts’, Empowerment and Family Support Networking Bulletin (Cornell University Empowerment Project) 2: 1–7.