Participation of marginalized groups in evaluation: Mission impossible?
Responsive evaluation facilitates a dialogical process by creating social conditions that enhance equal input from all stakeholders. However, when multiple stakeholders are involved, some groups tend to go unheard or not be taken seriously. In these cases, empowerment of the more silent voices is needed. The inclusion of marginalized groups in evaluation is thus a challenge for evaluators. It raises questions about how to include all stakeholders in the evaluation process in a way that empowers marginalized stakeholder groups, and at the same time is acceptable for the dominant stakeholder groups. In this article we describe our experiences with a responsive evaluation project on the participation of client councils in policy processes in a Dutch residential care and nursing home organization. We focus on the value of hermeneutic dialogue (fostering mutual understanding and learning processes) in addressing the challenges of working with stakeholders in unequal relationships.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Abma, Tineke A., 2005. "Responsive evaluation: Its meaning and special contribution to health promotion," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 279-289, August.
- McDonald, Diane, 2008. "Revisiting a theory of negotiation: The utility of Markiewicz (2005) proposed six principles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 259-265, August.
- Abma, T. A., 2000. "Stakeholder conflict: a case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 199-210, May.
- Abma, T. A., 2000. "Responding to ambiguity, responding to change the value of a responsive approach to evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 461-470, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:238-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.