A Vision of Evaluation that Strengthens Democracy

Evaluation

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 125-139

  Quinn Patton, Michael ^a  

^a Union Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937377442     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1358902002008001740     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alkin, M. (1997) `Stakeholder Concepts in Program Evaluation', in A. Reynolds and H. Walberg (eds) Evaluation for Educational Productivity. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2. Alkin, M.C., R. Daillak and P. White (1979) Using Evaluations: Does Evaluation Make a Difference?Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3. Arendt, H. (1968) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: The Viking Press.
4. Bitel, M. (2000) `Taking Evaluation to the People. Who Wants It?', Paper presented at the European Evaluation Society Conference, Lausanne, 12-14 October.
5. Chelimsky, E. (1995) `The Political Environment of Evaluation and What It Means for the Development of the Field', Evaluation Practice16(3): 215-25.
6. Cohen, D.K. and J.A. Weiss (1977) `Social Science and Social Policy: Schools and Race', in C. H. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policymaking, pp. 67-84. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
7. Cousins, J. B. and L. M. Earl (eds) (1995) Participatory Evaluation in Education: Studies in Evaluation Use and Organizational Learning. London: Falmer Press.
8. Fetterman, D. M., A. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (eds) (1996) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Greene, J.C. (1990) `Technical Quality Versus User Responsiveness in Evaluation Practice', Evaluation and Program Planning13(3): 267-74.
10. 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. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Guba, E. (1977) `Overcoming Resistance to Evaluation', Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation, North Dakota, USA.
12. Hopson, R. (ed.) (2000) How and Why Language Matters in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation 86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13. 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 Evaluation85, pp.13-26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. Kushner, S. (2000) Personalizing Evaluation. London: Sage.
15. MacDonald, B. (1987) `Evaluation and Control of Education', in R. Murphy and H. Torrance (eds) Issues and Methods in Evaluation. London: Paul Chapman.
16. Mertens, D.M. (1998) Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Mertens, D.M. (1999) `Inclusive Evaluation: Implications of Transformative Theory for Evaluation', American Journal of Evaluation20(1): 1-14.
18. Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn. London: Sage.
20. Patton, M.Q. (1998) `Discovering Process Use', Evaluation4(2): 225-33.
21. Patton, M.Q. (2000) `Language Matters', in R. Hopson (ed.) How and Why Language Matters in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Ryan, K. E. and L. DeStefano (eds) (2000) `Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation', in Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, New Directions for Evaluation85, pp. 13-26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23. Stern, E. (1999) `Why Parliament Should Take Evaluation Seriously', Parliamentary Review.
24. Torres, R.T., H.S. Preskill and M.E. Piontek (1996) Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and Reporting: Enhancing Learning in Organizations. London: Sage.
25. Weiss, C.H. and M. Bucuvalas (1980) `Truth Tests and Utility Tests: Decision Makers' Frame of Reference for Social Science Research', American Sociological Review45 (April): 302-13.