ArticlesArticles should deal wth topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Articles may focus on evaluation methods, theory, practice, or findings. In all cases, implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include, but are not limited to, reviews of new developments in evaluation, description of a current evaluation study, critical reviews of some area of evaluation practice, and presentations of important new techniques. Manuscripts should follow APA format for references and style. Length per se is not a criterion in evaluating submissions. ABSTRACTThe paper discusses two common scenarios in which evaluators must conduct impact evaluations when working under budget, time, or data constraints. Under the first scenario the evaluator is not called in until the project is already well advanced, and there is a tight deadline for completing the evaluation, frequently combined with a limited budget and without access to baseline data. Under the second scenario the evaluator is called in early, but for budget, political, or methodological reasons it is not possible to collect baseline data on a control group and sometimes not even on the project population. As a result of these constraints, many of the basic principles of impact evaluation design (comparable pretest-posttest design, control group, instrument development and testing, random sample selection, control for researcher bias, thorough documentation of the evaluation methodology, etc.) are often sacrificed. We describe the "Shoestring Evaluation" approach which is being developed to provide tools for ensuring the highest quality evaluation possible under constraints of limited budget, time and data availability. While most of the data collection and analysis techniques will be familiar to experienced evaluators, what is new is the Michael Bamberger • 6295 S.W. combination of these techniques into an integrated six-step approach which covers: (1) planning and scoping the evaluation, (2-4) options for dealing with constraints related to costs, time and data availability (which could include reconstructing baseline conditions and control groups), (5) identifying the strengths and weaknesses (threats to validity and adequacy) of the evaluation design, and (6) taking measures to address the threats and strengthen the evaluation design and conclusions. When necessary, many of these corrective measures can be introduced at a very late stage, even when the draft evaluation report has already been produced.

Participatory evaluation approaches have a relatively long history of advocacy and application in the international development evaluation community. Despite widespread use and apparent resonance with practitioners and donors alike, very little empirical research exists on why and how participatory evaluation approaches are used in international development settings. In this article, we present results derived from a mixed method investigation of a sample of practicing international development evaluators regarding their perceptions of how and why stakeholders are included in international development evaluations. Findings suggest that participatory evaluation approaches are interpreted and practiced in widely differing ways. Implications for international development evaluation practice and future research are discussed.Participatory approaches to evaluations of international development and aid programs first came to prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a direct response to international development programs that were seemingly mismatched to the needs of their intended beneficiaries (Chambers, 1992;Townsley, 1996). Including various stakeholder groups in the planning and evaluation process was believed to create development programs that both were better suited to these groups' needs and also more effective. Thus, stakeholders were not viewed exclusively as sources of evaluation data but also as important collaborators in the evaluation process. The adoption and recognition of participatory evaluation methods in international development represented a clear shift from what had previously been an almost exclusive focus on donor priorities to an expanded focus that included the

No abstract

2011 is the 25th anniversary of the American Evaluation Association. Such occasions are often recognized both by looking back to assess and celebrate accomplishments of the past and by looking ahead to anticipate the problems and potential of the future.It is surprisingly difficult to think in fresh ways about the future. Our first inclination is to assume that what is happening now will somehow continue, perhaps in a slightly altered form, into the future. This expectation reflects the comforting assumption that the past predicts the future, an assumption sorely tested unfortunately when one tries to predict stock prices, winning sports teams, or political events. While it is important to consider how current activities may be leading us into future conditions, such speculations are not only unreliable, they do little to stimulate radically alternative visions of the future.

A manual the author wrote in the early 1980s encouraged leaders of rural community development programs to do their own participatory self-evaluation (for reference see biography at the end of this article). The methodology promoted by that manual has been successfully used by many programs around the world. But the question gets asked: Can such participatory evaluation methods be used when conducting major program evaluations? And, if so, can the needs and expectations of all stakeholders be met, including agency headquarters, board of directors, and donors?