Chapter 8 of Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen’s text Program Evaluation covers participant-oriented approaches to evaluation. Such approaches seek to focus on “the human element” and include diverse voices not typically expressed in more standard evaluation approaches or models. Stake’s countenance framework describes the evaluatee and attempts to judge its value or worth. The illuminative model also focuses on description, but favors interpretation over value judgment. Naturalistic evaluations also aim at fully describing the program, but as it occurs with the evaluator in the role of the end-user or learner. Some approaches, such as Fetterman’s empowerment evaluation and Merten’s emancipatory evaluation attempt to address and liberate marginalized or suppressed populations.
These potentially highly-charged approaches may be valuable in certain institutions or programs seeking holistic evaluation, but I suspect the applicability or priority of such approaches are not as favorable to clients and even stakeholders as more standard evaluative approaches such as those I’ve summarized earlier. Case studies–and metaevaluations–using these approaches would probably help me wrap my head around their specific applicability and potential benefits for organizations and projects.
Summary of “Program Evaluation” ch 8, Participant-Oriented
Chapter 8 of Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen’s text Program Evaluation covers participant-oriented approaches to evaluation. Such approaches seek to focus on “the human element” and include diverse voices not typically expressed in more standard evaluation approaches or models. Stake’s countenance framework describes the evaluatee and attempts to judge its value or worth. The illuminative model also focuses on description, but favors interpretation over value judgment. Naturalistic evaluations also aim at fully describing the program, but as it occurs with the evaluator in the role of the end-user or learner. Some approaches, such as Fetterman’s empowerment evaluation and Merten’s emancipatory evaluation attempt to address and liberate marginalized or suppressed populations.
These potentially highly-charged approaches may be valuable in certain institutions or programs seeking holistic evaluation, but I suspect the applicability or priority of such approaches are not as favorable to clients and even stakeholders as more standard evaluative approaches such as those I’ve summarized earlier. Case studies–and metaevaluations–using these approaches would probably help me wrap my head around their specific applicability and potential benefits for organizations and projects.