Evaluative site visits: A methodological review

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 341-352

  Lawrenz, Frances ^a   Keiser, Nanette ^a   Lavoie, Bethann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0142024054     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ameval.2003.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bickel, R., Tomasek, T., & Eagle, T. H. (2000, February 21). Top-down, routinized reform in low-income, rural schools: NSF's Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n12.html
2. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Braverman, M., & Slater, J. (Eds). (1996). Advances in survey research (New Directions for Evaluation No. 70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Caracelli, V., & Greene, J. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation No. 80, pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Dill W.R. Specialized accreditation: Ah idea whose time has come? Or gone? Change 304 1998, July/August 18-24
10. Dulman, D. A. (2002). Mail and internet survey: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
11. Fowler, F. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of in targeting diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Gruenberg, D. E. (1983). College basic skills programs: A national survey. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education 6(3), 2-4, 30-32.
14. Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2002). (Eds.). Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Haun G. Building an effective site investigation team Educational Facility Planner 334 1996 4-7
16. Kavanaugh L. Guerilla accrediting: Accounting for community services and making community services count Community Services Catalyst 92 1979 15-19
17. Lawrenz F. Huffman D. The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation American Journal of Evaluation 23 2002 331-338
18. Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., & Lavoie, B. (2002). A guide for planning and implementing site visits. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
19. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20. Mark, M., & Shotland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation (New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 35, pp. 95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Migotsky, C., & Stake, R. (2001). An evaluation of an evaluation: CIRCE's metaevaluation of the site visits and issue papers of the ATE program evaluation. Urbana-Champaign, IL: CIRCE, University of Illinois.
24. Mitchell R. Site visits in the accreditation process of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Evaluation and Research in Education 4 1990 75-79
25. Nightingale, D., & Rossman, S. (1994). Managing field data collection from start to finish. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 350-373). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28. Shotland, R. L., & Mark, M. (1987). Improving inferences from multiple methods. In M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation (New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 35, pp. 77-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. Smith R.A. Preparing your institution for a program project site visit Journal of the Society of Research Administrators 213 1989 27-33
30. Stake R. Objectives, priorities, and other judgment data Review of Educational Research 40 1970 181-212
31. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Straw, R., & Herrell, J. (2002). A framework for understanding and improving multi-site evaluations. In J. Herrell & R. Straw (Eds.), Conducting multiple site evaluations in real-world settings (New Directions for Evaluation No. 94, pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
34. Webster's Third New International Dictionary. (1986). Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language (Unabridged). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
35. Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. Wilcox B. Is there a role for site visits in monitoring systems? A UK perspective Evaluation and Research in Education 4 1990 81-91
37. Worthen, B., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
38. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.