Involving stakeholders in the evaluation of community alcohol projects: Finding a balance between subjective insight and objective facts

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 42, Issue 12-13, 2007, Pages 1955-1969

  Boots, Kevin ^a,b   Midford, Richard ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (Australia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Alcohol; Community; Evaluation; Stakeholder; Theory

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL;

CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMMUNITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INTROSPECTION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THEORY;

ALCOHOLISM; ATTITUDE; COMMUNITY NETWORKS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; WESTERN AUSTRALIA;

EID: 37149049289     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: 15322491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10826080701723887     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. Argyris, C., Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Boots, K., Cutmore, T., Midford, R., Harrison, D., Laughlin, D. (1995). COMPARI Project evaluation report. Perth: National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse.
3. Bradley, J. E., Mayfield, M. V., Mehta, M. P., Rukonge, A. (2002). Participatory evaluation of reproductive health care quality in developing countries. Social Science & Medicine 55:269-282.
4. Brandon, P. R. (1998). Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation 19(3):325-337.
5. Buscema, M. (Ed). (1998). Artificial neural networks and complex social systems. III. Applications. Substance Use & Misuse 33:553-916.
6. Casswell, S. (1999). A decade of community action research. In S. Casswell, H. Holder, M. Holmila, S. Larsson, R. Midford, H. Moewaka Barnes, et al. (Eds.), Kettil Bruun Society Thematic Meeting: Fourth Symposium on Community Action Research and the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, pp. 30-48. Auckland: University of Auckland.
7. Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation 97:7-35.
8. Christie, C. A., Alkin, M. C. (2003). The user-oriented evaluator's role in formulating a program theory: Using a theory-driven approach. American Journal of Evaluation 24(3):373-385.
9. Cornwall, A. (1996). Participatory research methods: First steps in a participatory process In K. deKoning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 94-129). Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
10. Cousins, J. B., Earl, L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organisational learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.
11. deKoning, K., Martin, M. (1996). Participatory research in health: Setting the context. In K. deKoning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 1-18). Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
12. Dick, B. (1998). Action research and evaluation. Retrieved January 12, 2004, from www.aifs.gov.au/sf/actionresearch.html
13. English, B. (1997). Conducting ethical evaluation with disadvantaged and minority target groups. Evaluation Practice 18(1):49-54.
14. Fetterman, D. (1997). Empowerment evaluation: A response to Patton and Scriven. Evaluation Practice 18(3):253-266.
15. Fetterman, D. M. (2002). Empowerment evaluation: Building communities of practice and a culture of learning. American Journal of Community Psychology 30(1):89-102.
16. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Middlesex: Penguin.
17. Friedman, V. J. (2001). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 22(2):161-181.
18. Greene, J., Caracelli, V. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
19. Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Hall, J. E. (2004). Pluralistic evaluation: A situational approach to service evaluation. Journal of Nursing Management 12:22-27.
21. Harpham, T., Few, R. (2002). The Dar Es Salaam Urban Health Project, Tanzania: A multi-dimensional evaluation. Journal of Public Health Medicine 24(2):112-119.
22. Hart, E. (1999). The use of pluralistic evaluation to explore people's experiences of stroke services in the community. Health and Social Science in the Community 7(4):248-256.
23. Henry, G. T. (2002). Book review: Transparency, stakeholder involvement, and explanation in contemporary evaluation: A review essay stimulated by "Success in early intervention: The Chicago child-parent centres" edited by Arthur J. Reynolds. American Journal of Evaluation 23(2):235-244.
24. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D. (2002). The Archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 23(3):331-338.
25. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D. (2003). How can multi-site evaluations be participatory. American Journal of Evaluation 24(4):471-482.
26. Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., Lavoie, B. (2003). Evaluative site visits: A methodological review. American Journal of Evaluation 24(3):341-352.
27. Maguire, P. (1996). Proposing a more feminist participatory research: Knowing and being embraced openly. In K. deKoning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 27-39). Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
28. Martin, M. (1996). Issues of power in the participatory research process. In K. deKoning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 82-93). Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
29. Mathison, S. (2001). What's it like when the participatory evaluator is a "genuine" stakeholder? American Journal of Evaluation 22(1):29-35.
30. Mercier, C. (1997). Participation in a stakeholder-based evaluation: A case study. Evaluation and Program Planning 20(4):467-475.
31. Mertens, D. M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 20(1):1-14.
32. Midford, R. (2003). Submission to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. Perth: National Drug Research Institute.
33. Okurut, S., Odong, A., Imalingat, J., Okurut, A., Oloit, L., Oloit, F. (1996). Participartory research processes and empowerment: The PACODET community, Uganda. In K. deKoning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences, pp. 72-81. Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
34. Ovretveit, J. (1998). Evaluating health intervention. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
35. Ovretveit, J. (2002). Producing useful research about quality improvement. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 15(6/7):294-302.
36. Patton, M. Q. (1989). Qualitative methods in health care evaluation. In Health care evaluation - The report of the National Health Care Evaluation Workshop (pp. 26-40). Canberra: Public Health Association of Australia (Pub).
37. Patton, M. Q. (1997a). Of vacuum cleaners and toolboxes: A response to Fetterman's response. Evaluation Practice 18(3):267-270.
38. Patton, M. Q. (1997b). Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context. Evaluation Practice 18(2):147-163.
39. Patton, M. Q. (1997c). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Rothman, J. (n.d.). Action evaluation: A new method of goal setting, planning and defining success for community development initiatives. Retrieved July 11, 2004, from http://www.abrasco. org.br/GT%20Promocao/ Action%20Evaluation.pdf
42. Scriven, M. (1997). Empowerment evaluation examined. Evaluation Practice 18(2):165-175.
43. Secret, M., Jordan, A., Ford, J. (1999). Empowerment evaluation as a social work strategy. Health & Social Work 24(2):120-128.
44. Shiner, M., Thom, B., MacGregor, S., Gordon, D., Bayley, M. (2004). Exploring community responses to drugs. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved July 19, 2006, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/ 1859352685.pdf
45. Smith, G., Cantley, C. (1985). Assessing health care: A study in organisational evaluation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
46. Smith, M. F. (1999). Participatory evaluation: Not working or not tested. American Journal of Evaluation 20(2):295-308
47. Stake, R. E. (1983). Stakeholder influence in the evaluation of cities-in-schools. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 15-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation 89:7-98.
49. Sulkunen, P., Maatta, M., Rantala, K. (2003). Translating back - Evaluation as sociological intervention. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 20(Suppl.), 161-168.
50. Tandon, R. (1996). An historical perspective to PR. In K. deKoning M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 19-26). Johannesburg: National Progressive Primary Health Care Network.
51. VanVlaenderen, H. (2001). Evaluating development programs: Building joint activity. Evaluation and Program Planning 24:343-352.
52. Wadsworth, Y. (1991). Everyday evaluation on the run. Melbourne: Action Research Issues Association.
53. Weiss, C. H. (1983a). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54. Weiss, C. H. (1983b). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 83-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation 19(1):21-33.