Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation

Abstract

Defining, compartmentalizing, and differentiating among stakeholder involvement approaches to evaluation, such as collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation, enhance conceptual clarity. It also informs practice, helping evaluators select the most appropriate approach for the task at hand. This view of science and practice is presented in response to the argument of Cousins, Whitmore, and Shulha (2013) that efforts to differentiate among approaches have been ''unwarranted and ultimately unproductive'' (p. 15).Over the past couple of decades, members of the American Evaluation Association's (AEA) Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation Topical Interest Group (CPE-TIG) have labored to build a strong theoretical and empirical foundation of stakeholder involvement approaches in evaluation. This includes identifying the essential features of collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation. It also includes highlighting similarities and differences among these three major approaches to stakeholder involvement.Our primary disagreement with the article by Cousins et al. concerns the value and appropriateness of (1) differentiating among the stakeholder involvement approaches; (2) misleading characterization;(3) confounding and comingling terms, and (4) using collaborative inquiry as the umbrella term for stakeholder involvement approaches.

Storytelling, Science, and Religion: Promoting Reflection and Conversation about Societal Issues

“…The evaluation design was grounded by a practical participatory evaluative approach, which allowed the evaluator, project leaders, and educators to work together closely in developing and conducting the evaluation (Cousins and Whitmore ; Fetterman et al. ).…”

“…The Science & Religion evaluation was designed to learn about the programs' impact, with an emphasis on gathering information that would be useful for future work. The evaluation design was grounded by a practical participatory evaluative approach, which allowed the evaluator, project leaders, and educators to work together closely in developing and conducting the evaluation (Cousins and Whitmore 1998;Fetterman et al 2014).…”

Où en sommes-nous avec l’implication des parties prenantes?

“…D' emblée, il importe de préciser qu'un débat persiste dans la littérature à l' égard de la terminologie employée pour référer aux évaluations impliquant les parties prenantes : doit-on parler d' évaluation participative ou d' évaluation collaborative, la participation et la collaboration étant deux formes d'implication des parties prenantes poursuivant des visées distinctes? Tel que le suggèrent Fetterman, Rodriguez-Campos, Wandersman, et O'Sullivan (2013), afin d' éviter ce fl ou ter minologique, nous recourrons dans le contexte actuel de cet article aux termes génériques et plus englobants d' évaluations qui impliquent les parties prenantes, combinant du coup l' ensemble des approches qui favorisent cette implication, indépendamment de la nature de celle-ci.…”

“…bien que certains évaluateurs, tels que Stake (1975), MacDonald (1976, Patton (1978) et Guba et Lincoln (1981), aient démontré un intérêt pour les approches inclusives avant cette période. En effet, une vision constructiviste de l' évaluation survient alors et gagne en popularité, délaissant l'ancienne approche positiviste réservée aux experts des méthodes scientifiques, au profit d'une évaluation plus ouverte et prenant assise au sein de modèles naturalistes et pluralistes (Dubois et coll., 2011;Fitzpatrick, Sanders et Worthen, 2011;Guba et Lincoln, 1989;Madaus, Stufflebeam et Scriven, 1989;Ridde et Dagenais, 2012).…”

A Case Study of the Guiding Principles for Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation in a Developmental Evaluation Context

“…CAE are "growing and now include a wide range of familiar evaluation approaches and models" ( Shulha et al, 2015 , p. 195). Th ese approaches and models include participatory (e.g., Cousins & Chouinard, 2012 ;Cousins & Earl, 1992 ;Cousins & Shulha, 2006 ;Cousins & Whitmore, 1998 ), empowerment ( Fetterman, 1994 ), and collaborative ( O'Sullivan, 2004 ;Rodriguez-Campos, 2005 ;Shulha & Wilson, 2003 ) evaluation. Th ese are all predicated on slightly diff erent models, though they share the goal of engaging and involving stakeholders as a way of meeting their needs.…”