How power relations structure the evaluation process for hrd programmes

Human Resource Development International

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 5-20

  Kim, Hanbyul ^a   Cervero, Ronald M ^b  

^a Korea National University of Education   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation process; Organizational power; Stakeholder based evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015538199     PISSN: 13678868     EISSN: 14698374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13678860601170245     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. American Evaluation Association. 2004. Guiding principles for evaluators. available online:http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp (accessed 5 October 2006)
2. Brinkerhoff, R. O., 2003. The Success Case Method, San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
3. Cervero, R. M., and Wilson, A. L., 2001. “ At the heart of practice:The struggle for knowledge and power ”. In Power in Practice:Adult Education and the Struggle for Knowledge and Power in Society, Edited by:Cervero, R. M., Wilson, A. L., and Associates. 1–20. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
4. Cronbach, L. J., 1980. Toward Reform of Programme Evaluation, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
5. Cunningham, P. M., 2000. “ A sociology of adult education ”. In Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education:New Edition, Edited by:Wilson, A. L., and Hayes, E. R., 573–591. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
6. Drennon, C. E., and Cervero, R. M., 2002. The politics of facilitation in practitioner inquiry groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 52 (3):193–209.
7. Fenwick, T., 2001. “ Tides of change:New themes and questions in workplace learning ”. In Sociocultural Perspectives on Learning through Work, Edited by:Fenwick, T., 3–17. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 92
8. Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge:Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, New York:Pantheon Books.
9. Garavan, T. N., 1995. HRD stakeholders:Their philosophies, values, expectations and evaluation criteria. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19 (10):17–30.
10. Gilley, J. W., and Maycunich, A., 2000. Organizational Learning, Performance and Change, Cambridge, MA:Perseus.
11. Greene, J. C., 1997. Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Review, 18:25–35.
12. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., 2000. “ Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry ”. In Evaluation Models:Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation, Edited by:Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., and Kellaghan, T., 363–382. Boston:Kluwer Academic.
13. Holton, E. F., 1996. The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7 (1):5–21.
14. Holton, E. F., and Naquin, S., 2005. A critical analysis of HRD evaluation models from a decision-making perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (2):257–280.
15. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. The programme evaluation standards. available online:http://www.eval.org/EvaluationDocuments/progeval.html (accessed 5 October 2006)
16. Kaufman, R., and Keller, J. M., 1994. Levels of evaluation:Beyond Kirkpatrick. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5 (4):371–380.
17. Kirkpatrick, D. L., 1998. Evaluating Training Programmes:The Four Levels, San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
18. Lee, J., 2001. Confucian thoughts affecting leadership and organizational culture of Korean higher education. Radical Pedagogy, 3 (1) available online:http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue3_3/5-lee.html (accessed 20 November 2004)
19. Marquardt, M. J., 2004. Optimizing the Power of Action Learning, Palo Alto, CA:Davies-Black Publishing.
20. Maxwell, J. A., 2002. “ Understanding and validity in qualitative research ”. In The Qualitative Researcher's Companion, Edited by:Huberman, A. M., and Miles, M. B., 37–64. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
21. McKinlay, A., and Starkey, K., 1998. “ Managing Foucault:Foucault, management and organization theory ”. In Foucault, Management, and Organization Theory, Edited by:McKinlay, A., and Starkey, K., 1–13. London:Sage.
22. Merriam, S. B., 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
23. Michalski, G. V., and Cousins, J. B., 2000. Differences in stakeholder perceptions about training evaluation:A concept mapping/pattern matching investigation. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 23:211–230.
24. Michalski, G. V., and Cousins, J. B., 2001. Multiple perspectives on training evaluation:Probing stakeholder perceptions in a global network development firm. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 (1):37–53.
25. Newman, M., 1994. Defining the Enemy:Adult Education in Social Action, Sydney, AU:Stewart Victor Publishing.
26. Palumbo, D. J., 1987. “ Politics and evaluation ”. In The Politics of Programme Evaluation, Edited by:Palumbo, D. J., 12–46. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
27. Patton, M. Q., 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
28. Patton, M. Q., 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation, Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
29. Robertson, K., 2002. Theory-driven evaluation:An alternative. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development,:31–32.
30. Rocco, T. S., and West, G. W., 1998. Deconstructing privilege:An examination of privilege in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (3):171–184.
31. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., and Lipsey, M. W., 1999. Evaluation:A Systematic Approach, (6th edn), Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
32. Rothwell, W. J., and Kazanas, H. C., 1994. Human Resource Development:A Strategic Approach, Amherst, MA:HRD Press.
33. Russ-Eft, D., and Preskill, H., 2001. Evaluation in Organizations, Cambridge, MA:Perseus.
34. Schied, F. M., 2001. “ Struggling to learn, learning to struggle:Workers, workplace learning, and the emergence of human resource development ”. In Making Space:Reframing Theory and Practice in Adult Education, Edited by:Sheared, V., and Sissel, P. A., 124–137. New York:Greenwood.
35. Solomon, N., 2001. “ Workplace learning as a cultural technology ”. In Sociocultural Perspectives on Learning through Work, Edited by:Fenwick, T., 41–51. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 92
36. Sork, T. J., 2000. “ Planning educational programs ”. In Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, (New edn), Edited by:Wilson, A. L., and Hayes, E. R., 171–190. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
37. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research:Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, (2nd edn), Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
38. Swanson, R. A., and Holton, E. F., 2001. Foundations of Human Resource Development, San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
39. Walton, J., 1999. Strategic Human Resource Development, London:Prentice Hall.
40. Weiss, C. H., 1983. “ The stakeholder approach to evaluation:Origins and promise ”. In Stakeholder-based evaluation, Edited by:Bryk, A. S., 3–14. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Programme Evaluation, No. 14
41. Weiss, C. H., 1987. “ Where politics and evaluation research meet ”. In The Politics of Programme Evaluation, Edited by:Palumbo, D. J., 47–72. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
42. Weiss, C. H., 1990. “ Evaluation for decisions ”. In Debates on Evaluation, Edited by:Alkin, M. C., 171–184. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
43. Weiss, C. H., 1998. Evaluation, (2nd edn), Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
44. Weiss, C. H., 2004. “ Rooting for evaluation:A cliff notes version of my work ”. In Evaluation Roots, Edited by:Alkin, M. C., 153–168. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
45. Yin, R. K., 2003. Case Study Research:Design and Methods, (3rd edn), Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.