What is Essential in Developmental Evaluation? On Integrity, Fidelity, Adultery, Abstinence, Impotence, Long-Term Commitment, Integrity, and Sensitivity in Implementing Evaluation Models

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 250-265

  Patton, Michael Quinn ^a  

^a Utilization Focused Evaluation   (United States)

Author keywords

developmental evaluation; fidelity; principles; sensitizing concepts

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971657577     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214015626295     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. H.Blumer (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 19, 3–10.
2. B.Chilisa (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. C.L.S.CorynL.A.NoakesC.D.WestineD.C.Schröter (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 199–226.
4. J.B.Cousins (2005). Will the real empowerment evaluation please stand up? In (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 183–208). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5. J.B.CousinsJ.A.Chouinard (2012). Participatory evaluation up close: An integration of research-based knowledge. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
6. J.B.CousinsE.WhitmoreL.Shulha (2014). Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 7–22.
7. D.R.CruickshankJ.J.Kennedy (1986). Teacher clarity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 43–67.
8. P.M.DaigneaultS.Jacob (2009). Toward accurate measurement of participation: Rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 330–348.
9. R.DicksonM.Saunders (2014). Developmental evaluation: Lessons for evaluative practice from the SEARCH program. Evaluation, 20, 176–194.
10. S.I.DonaldsonM.Q.PattonD.FettermanM.Scriven (2010). The 2009 Claremont Debates: The promise and pitfalls of utilization-focused and empowerment evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 6, 15–57.
11. D.M.Fetterman (2005). A window into the heart and soul of empowerment evaluation. In (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. D.M.FettermanJ.ShakehS.J.KaftarianA.H.Wandersman (2014). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment, evaluation capacity building, and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. D.M.FettermanA.WandersmanS.Kaftarian (2015). Empowerment evaluation is a systematic way of thinking: A response to Michael Patton. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 10–14.
14. FSG. (2014). Next generation evaluation: Embracing complexity, connectivity, and change. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved fromwww.ssir.org/nextgenevaluation
15. R.N.Goldstein (2015). What philosophers really know. The New York Review of Books, LXII, 48–50.
16. L.H.GundersonC.S.Holling (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations inhuman and natural system. Washington, DC: Island Press.
17. S.JacobG.Desautels (2014). Assessing the quality of Aboriginal program evaluations. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 29, 62–86.
18. G.Kolata (2006a, 718). Race to the swift? Not necessarily. New York Times, Health and Fitness Section, p. 1.
19. G.Kolata (2006b, 1214). Study questions colonoscopy effectiveness. New York Times, p. A36.
20. C.Y.LamL.M.Shulha (2014). Insights on using developmental evaluation for innovating: A case study on the cocreation of an innovative program. American Journal of Evaluation, 36, 358–374.
21. D.J.MacCoy (2014). Appreciative inquiry and evaluation – Getting to what works. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 29, 104–127.
22. R.L.MillerR.Campbell (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296–319.
23. H.G.Murray (2007). Low inference teaching behaviors and college effectiveness. In (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 145–183). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
24. Online dictionary. (2015). Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+essential&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS591US591&oq=definition+of+essential+&aqs=chrome.69i57j0l5.9552j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8
25. M.Q.Patton (2007). Process use as a usefulism. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 99–112.
26. M.Q.Patton (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. M.Q.Patton (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28. M.Q.Patton (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. M.Q.Patton (2015a). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. M.Q.Patton (2015b). Review of empowerment evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 15–18.
31. M.Q.Patton (2016). The developmental evaluation mindset: Eight guiding principles. In (Eds.), Developmental evaluation exemplars: Principles in practice (pp. 289–312). New Yok, NY: Guilford.
32. H.PreskillT.Beer (2012). Evaluating social innovation. FSG Webinar. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fsg.org/publications/evaluating-social-innovation
33. H.PreskillT.T.Catsambas (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. B.RosenshineN.Furst (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In (ed.), Research in teacher education (pp. 37–72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35. T.A.Schwandt (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. M.Scriven (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (AERA Monograph series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1, pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
37. B.Williams (2005). Systems and systems thinking. In (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 405–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. B.Williams (2008). Systemic inquiry. In (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 854–859). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. B.Williams (2014). A systems practitioner’s journey. AEA365 blog. Retrieved November 16 fromhttps://us-mg204.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=3sva69d24c9fe#
40. B.WilliamsR.Hummelbrunner (2011). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41. B.WilliamsI.Iman (2007). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (American Evaluation Association Monograph No. 6). Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress.
42. B.Williams, S.van ‘t Hof (2014). Wicked solutions: A systems approach to complex problems. Wellington, New Zealand: Bob Williams. Retrieved fromwww.bobwilliams.co.nz/wicked.pdf
43. M.Williams (2004). “Operationism/Operationalism.” In (Eds.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 768–778). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.