IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/comdev/v52y2021i5p607-623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A clash of values: Deep-rooted discord between empowering, participatory, community-driven development and results-focused, evidence-based evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Leanne M. Kelly

Abstract

Evaluation is experiencing increasing popularity with Western-leddiscourse hailing the worth of evidence-based practice, results based management, measurement, and value for money. While this orthodoxy of evaluation has been subjected to substantial critique, dissenting voices and local ways of doing have been over powered by the dominant paradigm, which privileges certain types of evidence over others. This paper examines the evident disconnects that occur when the evaluation orthodoxy is applied to evaluation of community development interventions. As such, the paper examines extreme ends of the continuum to illustrate deep-rooted epistemological divergences between the positivist, reductionist, top-down evaluation orthodoxy that is profoundly at odds with the constructivist, complex, experience-valuing, bottom up values of community development. This paper suggests that evaluation practice must deeply consider values and principles central to community development theory so evaluation can support and enhance, rather than hinder and contradict, the processes and outcomes that community development interventions strive to realize.

Suggested Citation

  • Leanne M. Kelly, 2021. "A clash of values: Deep-rooted discord between empowering, participatory, community-driven development and results-focused, evidence-based evaluation," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 607-623, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:comdev:v:52:y:2021:i:5:p:607-623
    DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2021.1936101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/15575330.2021.1936101
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/15575330.2021.1936101?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:comdev:v:52:y:2021:i:5:p:607-623. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCOD20 .

    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.