Sandra Mathison

Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Evaluation Approaches in Evaluation Practice

Panel discussions should be well-integrated interactive or question-answer format presentations of important evaluation idea. These panels may be drawn from panel presentations at AEA or other professional meetings, but would need to be something of significant interest that would list them out of the realm of the “ordinary” panel discussions. The panel presentation should be submitted by a single individual, although the responses of all panelists would be individually identified. Interviewees should be persons who are important stakeholders for evaluations and those with views of general interest to practicing evaluators. Interviewers and interviewees may be one person or several (i.e., one person may interview one individual or a panel of individuals, a panel of interviewers may interview one or more interviewees, and so on). Paul Johnson, of the U.S. Public Health Service, is coordinating this section. Suggestions for interviewees and interviewers should be sent to Paul at 740-G Humphrey Bldg., 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington DC 20201.

Rethinking the evaluator role: Partnerships between organizations and evaluators

Abstract Participatory evaluation provides a framework for conducting evaluations which recognize the importance of representing stakeholder interests, and also seeking the investment of stakeholders in the construction of the evaluation process and product. This type of evaluation casts the evaluators role as an involved collaborating participant in the evaluation. I have suggested partnerships between evaluators and organizations as one possible manifestation of this new role. Such partnerships provide for a long term relationship between evaluator and organization, at less cost than an internal evaluator, and with greater likelihood of addressing systemic factors which directly effect the quality of goods and services provided by the organization.

What do we know about internal evaluation

Abstract The extant research and common wisdom about internal evaluation are summarized. Two common types of internal evaluation appear in the literature (the self-evaluating organization and organizations with special evaluation units) which the author describes and discusses. Issues that arise repeatedly in discussions of internal evaluation are delineated and include the significance of the formative-summative distinction, the prevalence of the decision-making model, and some recent alternative ideas about internal evaluation.

Role conflicts for internal evaluators

Abstract Internal evaluators, by definition of their work, must perform several different roles in their organizational context. These roles are related to being a professional evaluator, a member of a community focusing on some substantive issue or topic, and a member of some organization. These various roles are inherently conflictual making the work of internal evaluators an exercise in negotiating and managing conflict.

What’s it like when the participatory evaluator is a “genuine” stakeholder?

Abstract In this reflective, analytic story I discuss what it is like to be a parent and an evaluator in a participatory, democratic evaluation of an afterschool program. The story tells of tensions between these roles, and how these tensions can instruct participatory evaluators in pursuing goals of democracy, community, and justice in evaluation. This discussion can be situated among a number of recent articles in AJE that have focused on analyses of participatory or empowerment evaluation. (See Schnoes, Murphy-Berman, & Chambers, 2000 ; and the exchanges between Smith 1999 , Cousins and Earl 1999 .)

Performing Parent Dialogues on High-Stakes Testing: Consent and Resistance to the Hegemony of Accountability

Assessment-driven accountability has altered the way schools deliver their services to children, and their relations with parents. Listening to how parents talk about their experiences with testing fosters an understanding of the discursive power found in the states accountability rhetoric about learning, achievement, and assessment and how this discourse is accepted or rejected by parents. Focus groups with parents were conducted as part of a naturalistic study examining state-mandated testing and teaching and learning in two New York State school districts: one suburban and one urban. In four dialogic acts, we bring to life the questions, concerns, and understandings parents have of the impact state testing has on their childrens educational experience. These acts represent areas of struggle for parents as they make sense of the new accountability discourse. They can be thought of as a performed critique of this discourse and its exemplification.