Building evaluation capacity in Spain: A case study of rural development and empowerment in the European union

Evaluation Review

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 478-506

  Daz Puente, Jos M ^a   Yage, Jos L ^a   Afonso, Ana ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Empowerment evaluation; Evaluation capacity building; Evaluation culture; Local partnership; Rural development

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MASS COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; POLICY; SPAIN;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EUROPEAN UNION; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIAL PLANNING; SPAIN;

EID: 50949119649     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: 15523926     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X08319015     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Atkinson, D.D., M. Wilson, and D. Avula. 2005. A participatory approach to building capacity of treatment programs to engage in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 28 (3). 329-34.
2. Barke, M., and M. Newton. 1995. The EU LEADER Initiative and rural tourism development: Applications in Spain. In Issues in travel and tourism, Vol. 1, edited by N. Evans and M. Robinson, 1-40. Sunderland, UK: Business Education Publishers.
3. - -. 1997. The EU LEADER Initiative and endogenous rural development: The application of the programme in two rural areas of Andalusia, Southern Spain. Journal of Rural Studies 13 (3). 319-41.
4. Bryden, J., and I. Scott. 1990. The Celtic fringe: State sponsored versus indigenous local development initiatives in Scotland and Ireland. In Global challenge and local response: Initiatives for economic regeneration in contemporary Europe, edited by W. B. Sthr, 90-132. London: Mansell.
5. Cazorla, A., I. De los Ros, and J.M. Daz-Puente. 2005. The LEADER community initiative as rural development model: Application in the capital region of Spain. Agrociencia 39 (6). 697-708.
6. Clayson, Z., X. Castaeda, E. Sanchez, and C. Brindis. 2002. Unequal power-Changing landscapes: Negotiations between evaluation stakeholders in Latino communities. American Journal of Evaluation 23 (1). 33-44.
7. Commission of the EC. 1990 a. The community initiative for rural development: LEADER. Information Memo, July 25, 1990. Brussels.
8. - -. 1990b. Draft notice from the commission to member states laying down guidelines for integrated grants for which member states are invited to submit proposals in the framework of a community initiative for rural development. Brussels.
9. Commission of the EU. 1994. Notice to the member states laying down guidelines for global grants or integrated operational programmes for which member states are invited to submit applications for assistance in the framework of a community initiative for rural development LEADER II. Brussels.
10. - -. 1997 a. Evaluating EU expenditure programmes: A guide for ex-post and intermediate evaluation. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/ pdf/guide_en.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005).
11. - -. 1997 b. MEANS handbook no. 5. Quality assessment of evaluation reports: A framework. Brussels.
12. - -. 1999 a. Ex-post evaluation of the community initiative LEADER II: Guidelines for the evaluation. Brussels.
13. - -. 1999 b. Guidelines for the evaluation of the rural development programmes 2000-2006 supported from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. http:/www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/eval/guide/2000_en. pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
14. - -. 1999 c. Guidelines for the ex-post evaluation of objective 5b programmes: 1994-1999 programming period. Brussels.
15. - -. 1999 d. The MEANS collection: Evaluating socio-economic programmes. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
16. - -. 2000 a. Commission notice to the member states of April 14, 2000 laying down guidelines for the community initiative for rural development (LEADER +). http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/ library/methodology/139_en.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
17. - -. 2000 b. LEADER+: Guidelines for the ex-ante evaluation of programmes. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/guidelines/ eval_en.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
18. - -. 2002 a. Guidelines for the evaluation of the LEADER+ programmes. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/guidelines/eval1_en. pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
19. - -. 2002 b. Guidelines for the mid term evaluation of rural development programmes 2000-2006 supported from the European Agricultural. Guidance and Guarantee Fund. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/ guidelines/eval2_en.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
20. - -. 2005. Commission forward evaluation programme. http://www.europa.eu. int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/comm_forward_eval_plan_2005_0605_en.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).
21. Council of the EC. 1988. Regulation (EEC) no. 2052/88 and Regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88. Brussels.
22. - -. 1993. Regulation (EEC) no. 2081/93 and Regulation (EEC) No. 2082/93. Brussels.
23. Council of the EU. 1999. Regulation (EC) no. 1260/1999. http://www.europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/consleg/pdf/1999/en_1999R1260_do_001.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005).
24. Cousins, J.B., and L.M. Earl. 1995. The case for participatory evaluation: Theory, research, and practice. In Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in use and organizational learning, edited by J. B. Cousins and L. M. Earl, 3-18. London: Falmer.
25. De Laat, B. 2005. Study on the use of evaluation results in the Commission: Final report. Technopolis France. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/ budget/evaluation/pdf/main_report_2005.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005).
26. Derlien, H.-U. 1990. Genesis and structure of evaluation efforts in comparative perspective. In Program evaluation and the management of government: Patterns and prospects across eight Nations, edited by R. C. Rist (Ed.), 147-77. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
27. Dewees, S., L. Lobao, and L.E. Swanson. 2003. Local economic development in an age of devolution: The question of rural localities. Rural Sociology 68 (2). 182-206.
28. Daz-Puente, J.M. 2003. Diseo y aplicacin de un modelo para el seguimiento y evaluacin del desarrollo rural en la UE. PhD diss., Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Spain.
29. - -. 2007. La evaluacin en planes y programas de desarrollo: Estado actual y principales tendencias a nivel internacional. In Empowerment evaluation: Metodologa para el seguimiento de programas y proyectos, edited by D. Fetterman and A. Cazorla, 21-82. Madrid, Spain: Lasgn.
30. Daz-Puente, J.M., A. Cazorla, and A. Dorrego. 2007. Crossing national, continental, and linguistic boundaries: Toward a worldwide evaluation research community in journals of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (4). 399-415.
31. Diez, M.A. 2001. The evaluation of regional innovation and cluster policies: Towards a participatory approach. European Planning Studies 9 (7). 907-923.
32. Earl, L., and S. Katz. 2002. Leading schools in a data-rich world. In Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration, edited by K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman, P. Grann, B. Mulford, and K. Riley, 1003-24. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Fetterman, D.M. 1994 a. Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice 15 (1). 1-15.
34. - -. 1994 b. Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning 17 (3). 305-13.
35. - -. 1996. Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to theory and practice. In Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability, edited by D. M. Fetterman, S. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman, 3-46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Fetterman, D.M. 2001 a. Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. - -. 2001 b. The transformation of evaluation into a collaboration: A vision of evaluation in the 21st century. American Journal of Evaluation 22 (3). 381-385.
38. - -. 2005. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice: Assessing levels of commitment. In Empowerment evaluation principles in practice, edited by D. M. Fetterman and A. Wandersman, 42-72. New York: Guilford.
39. - -. 2007. Empowerment evaluation: A participatory tool to help accomplish programmatic objectives. In Empowerment evaluation: Metodologa para el seguimiento de programas y proyectos, edited by D. Fetterman and A. Cazorla, 121-42. Madrid, Spain: Lasgn.
40. Fetterman, D.M., and A. Wandersman. 2005. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford.
41. - -. 2007. Empowerment evaluation: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (2). 179-98.
42. Fischler, F. 2000. Introduction. LEADER Magazine 23 (Summer): 2.
43. Floc'hlay, B., and E. Plottu. 1998. Democratic evaluation: From empowerment evaluation to public decision-making. Evaluation 4 (3). 261-77.
44. Greene, J., and V. Caracelli. 1997. Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 74, edited by J. Greene and V. Caracelli, 5-17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. Gregory, A. 2000. Problematising participation: A critical review of approaches to participation in evaluation theory. Evaluation 6 (2). 179-99.
46. Haan, H., and J.D. Van Der Ploeg. 1992. Endogenous regional development in Europe: Theory, method and practice. Brussels: European Commission.
47. Henry, G.T., and M.M. Mark. 2003. Beyond Use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3). 293-14.
48. Hishigsuren, G. 2007. Evaluation mission drift in microfinance: Lessons for programs with social mission. Evaluation Review 31 (3). 203-60.
49. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Boother. 2000. Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning Theory and Practice 1 (2). 173-86.
50. Kirkhart, K. 2000. Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In The expanding scope of evaluation use, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 88, edited by V. Caracelli and H. Preskill, 5-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51. Lawrenz, F., and D. Huffman. 2002. The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 23 (3). 331-338.
52. LEADER Observatory. 1999. Assessing the added value of the LEADER approach. Rural Innovation Dossier no. 4. Brussels.
53. Lennie, J. 2005. An evaluation capacity-building process for sustainable community IT initiatives: Empowering and disempowering impacts. Evaluation 11 (4). 390-414.
54. Morabito, S.M. 2002. Evaluator roles and strategies for expanding evaluation process influence. American Journal of Evaluation 23 (3). 321-30.
55. Moseley, M.J. 1995. Policy and practice: The environmental component of the LEADER programme, 1992-94. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38 (2). 245-52.
56. Musto, S. 1985. In search of a new paradigm. In Endogenous development: A myth or a path? edited by S. Musto, 5-18. Berlin: EADI Books.
57. Patton, M.Q. 1997 a. Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context [Review of empowerment evaluation knowledge and tools for self-assessment & accountability]. Evaluation Practice 18 (1). 147-63.
58. - -. 1997 b. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 3 rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59. - -. 1999. Utilization-focused evaluation in Africa. http://www. geocities.com/afreval/documents/training.htm (accessed December 13, 2005).
60. - -. 2005. Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context: Take two [Review of empowerment evaluation principles in practice]. American Journal of Evaluation 26 (3). 408-14.
61. Potter, P. 2005. Facilitating transferable learning through cluster evaluation: New opportunities in the development partnerships of the EU "EQUAL" programme. Evaluation 11 (2). 189-205.
62. Preskill, H., and R. Torres. 1999. Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Race, K.H., D.F. Hotch, and T. Packer. 1994. Rehabilitation program evaluation: Use of focus groups to empower clients. Evaluation Review 18 (6). 730-40.
64. Rallis, S.F., and G.B. Rossman. 2000. Dialogue for learning: Evaluator as critical friend. In How and why language matters in evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 86, edited by R. K. Hopson, 81-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65. Rappaport, J. 1981. In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology 9 (1). 1-25.
66. Ray, C. 1998. Territory, structures and interpretation. Two case studies of the European Union's LEADER I programme. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1). 79-87.
67. Riddell, R.C., S-E. Kruse, T. Kyllen, S. Ojanper, and J-L. Vielajus. 1997. Searching for impact and methods: NGO evaluation synthesis study. A report produced for the OECD/DAC expert group on evaluation. http://www.valt.helsinki. fi/ids/ngo/conten.htm (accessed December 13, 2005).
68. Saraceno, E. 1999. The evaluation of local policy making in Europe: Learning from the LEADER community initiative. Evaluation 5 (4). 439-57.
69. Schulz, A.J., B.A. Israel, and P. Lantz. 2003. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning 26 (3). 249-262.
70. Scott, M. 2004. Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: The role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (1). 49-59.
71. Scriven, M. 1997. Empowerment evaluation examined [Review of empowerment evaluation knowledge and tools for self-assessment & accountability]. Evaluation Practice 18 (1). 165-75.
72. - -. 2005. Review of empowerment evaluation principles in practice. American Journal of Evaluation 26 (3). 415-17.
73. Sechrest, L. 1997. Review of empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self assessment and accountability. Environment and Behavior 29 (3). 422-26.
74. Sthr, W.B. 1981. Development from below: The bottom-up and periphery-inward development paradigm. In Development from above or below? edited by W. B. Sthr and D. R. F. Taylor, 39-72. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
75. Sullins, C. 2003. Adapting the empowerment evaluation model: A mental health drop-in center case example. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3). 387-98.
76. Taut, S. 2007. Studying self-evaluation capacity building in a large international development organization. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (1). 45-59.
77. Van der Ploeg, J.D., and A. Long. 1994. Born from within: Practice and perspectives of endogenous rural development. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
78. Waysman, M., and R. Savaya, 1997. Mixed method evaluation: A case study. Evaluation practice 18 (1). 227-37.
79. Whyte, W. F., ed. 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
80. Williams, K., B. de Laat, and E. Stern. 2002. The use of evaluation in the Commission services: Final report. Technopolis France and the Tavistock Institute. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ use_of%20_evaluation_final_report.pdf (accessed December 20, 2005 ).