IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v32y2009i2p91-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The unique character of involvement in multi-site evaluation settings

Author

Listed:
  • Toal, Stacie A.
  • King, Jean A.
  • Johnson, Kelli
  • Lawrenz, Frances

Abstract

As the number of large federal programs increases, so, too, does the need for a more complete understanding of how to conduct evaluations of such complex programs. The research literature has documented the benefits of stakeholder participation in smaller-scale program evaluations. However, given the scope and diversity of projects in multi-site program evaluations, traditional notions of participatory evaluation do not apply. The purpose of this research is to determine the ways in which stakeholders are involved in large-scale, multi-site STEM evaluations. This article describes the findings from a survey of 313 program leaders and evaluators and from follow-up interviews with 12 of these individuals. Findings from this study indicate that attendance at meetings and conferences, planning discussions within the project related to use of the program evaluation, and participation in data collection should be added to the list of activities that foster feelings of evaluation involvement among stakeholders. In addition, perceptions of involvement may vary according to breadth or depth of evaluation activities, but not always both. Overall, this study suggests that despite the contextual challenges of large, multi-site evaluations, it is feasible to build feelings of involvement among stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Toal, Stacie A. & King, Jean A. & Johnson, Kelli & Lawrenz, Frances, 2009. "The unique character of involvement in multi-site evaluation settings," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 91-98, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:2:p:91-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(08)00102-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayers, Toby Diane, 1987. "Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: A stakeholder-collaborative approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 263-271, January.
    2. Folkman, Daniel V. & Rai, Kalyani, 1997. "Reflections on facilitating a participatory community self-evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 455-465, November.
    3. Greene, Jennifer C., 1988. "Communication of results and utilization in participatory program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 341-351, January.
    4. Mathie, Alison & Greene, Jennifer C., 1997. "Stakeholder participation in evaluation: How important is diversity?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 279-285, August.
    5. Greene, Jennifer C., 1987. "Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 379-394, January.
    6. Brandon, Paul R., 1999. "Involving program stakeholders in reviews of evaluators' recommendations for program revisions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 363-372, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evans, S. & Dadich, A. & Stout, B. & Plath, D., 2020. "Clarifying the role of belief-motive explanations in multi-stakeholder realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    3. Roseland, Denise & Lawrenz, Frances & Thao, Mao, 2015. "The relationship between involvement in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-82.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    3. Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    4. Papineau, Danielle & Kiely, Margaret C., 1996. "Participatory evaluation in a community organization: Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 79-93, February.
    5. Marleen Kerkhof & Annemarie Groot & Marien Borgstein & Leontien Bos-Gorter, 2010. "Moving beyond the numbers: a participatory evaluation of sustainability in Dutch agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 307-319, September.
    6. Tri Minh Ha & Phuc Van Nguyen, 2017. "Factors Affecting Evaluation Influence in the Public Sector of Cam Lo District, Vietnam," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(1), pages 309-318.
    7. Brandon, Paul R., 1999. "Involving program stakeholders in reviews of evaluators' recommendations for program revisions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 363-372, August.
    8. Turnbull, B., 1999. "The mediating effect of participation efficacy on evaluation use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 131-140, May.
    9. Unruh, Deanne, 2005. "Using primary and secondary stakeholders to define facility-to-community transition needs for adjudicated youth with disabilities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 413-422, November.
    10. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    11. Mercier, Celine, 1997. "Participation in stakeholder-based evaluation: A case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 467-475, November.
    12. Neuman, Ari & Shahor, Neria & Shina, Ilan & Sarid, Anat & Saar, Zehava, 2013. "Evaluation utilization research—Developing a theory and putting it to use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 64-70.
    13. Minnett, Ann M., 1999. "Internal evaluation in a self-reflective organization: one nonprofit agency's model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 353-362, August.
    14. Paul R. Brandon & Zhigang Wang & Ronald H. Heck, 1994. "Teacher Involvement in School-Conducted Needs Assessments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(4), pages 458-471, August.
    15. SHI, Jia & LEE, Ching-Hung & GUO, Xuesong & ZHU, Zhengwei, 2020. "Constructing an integrated stakeholder-based participatory policy evaluation model for urban traffic restriction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Jacob, Steve & Ouvrard, Laurence & Bélanger, Jean-François, 2011. "Participatory evaluation and process use within a social aid organization for at-risk families and youth," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 113-123, May.
    17. R. Burke Johnson, 1995. "Estimating an Evaluation Utilization Model Using Conjoint Measurement and Analysis," Evaluation Review, , vol. 19(3), pages 313-338, June.
    18. Granderson, Ainka A., 2011. "Enabling multi-faceted measures of success for protected area management in Trinidad and Tobago," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 185-195, August.
    19. Valérie Pattyn & Marjolein Bouterse, 2020. "Explaining use and non-use of policy evaluations in a mature evaluation setting," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Mawhinney, Lynnette & Drame, Elizabeth R. & Bowe, Anica G. & Duval-Diop, Dominique & Kares, Faith R. & Santos, Patrizia, 2023. "Responding to the times: Adapting an evaluation study during a dual pandemic," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:2:p:91-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.