IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v9y1985i5p605-626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder-Based Evaluation and Value Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Melvin M. Mark

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • R. Lance Shotland

    (Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

The nature of values in stakeholder-based evaluations is discussed. One key value judgment involves the selection of stakeholder groups for participation. In the first major section of this article, the role of values in such selection is emphasized by considering two dimensions on which stakeholder groups may vary—power and legitimacy. It is shown that the selection of stakeholder groups can be based on a rationale for stakeholder-based evaluation; however, the choice of a rationale for stakeholder participation is itself a value judgment, implicitly or explicitly. Further, in implementing a rationale, value judgments are required, particularly if the rationale involves empowerment and democratization. In a second section, the consequences of stakeholder par ticipation are discussed. Although numerous commentaries imply positive effects, much is not known, such as the type or level of stakeholder involvement required for effective participation. Further, stakeholder participation may serve as a means of preempting criticism by stakeholders, or may be a form of pseudoempowerment. Ironically, the evaluator may autocratically designate which groups participate in a process meant to empower democratically. Finally, some suggestions are made about how evaluators might better deal with the value judgments inherent in stakeholder-based evaluations, and, more generally, how stakeholder-based approaches to evaluation might be improved.

Suggested Citation

  • Melvin M. Mark & R. Lance Shotland, 1985. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation and Value Judgments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 9(5), pages 605-626, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:9:y:1985:i:5:p:605-626
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8500900504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8500900504
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8500900504?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michalski, Greg V. & Cousins, J. Bradley, 2000. "Differences in stakeholder perceptions about training evaluation: a concept mapping/pattern matching investigation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 211-230, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mercier, Celine, 1997. "Participation in stakeholder-based evaluation: A case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 467-475, November.
    6. 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.

    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:sae:evarev:v:9:y:1985:i:5:p:605-626. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.