“…In relation to the 'what', a core distinction is often made (for example Bennett 2003) between the 'classical' evaluation tradition deriving from the work of Tyler (1942) with its emphasis on specification and measurement of outputs from later approaches which present much wider perspectives such as Stufflebeam's (1983) CIPP (context-input-process-product) and Cronbach's (1982) utos (units of focus, treatments, observations/outcomes, settings) frameworks. In terms of 'how', discussion traditionally draws on wider discussions of methodology to contrast quantitative approaches, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Campbell 1975, Cook, et al, 2010 with approaches that seek to explore the subject of the evaluation using more qualitative methods such as thick description and case study (Parlett andHamilton 1976, Stake 1986) or approaches that draw on the traditions of connoisseurship and criticism (Eisner 1985). Finally, in terms of 'who' should participate in evaluation and determine its outcomes, the history of evaluation exhibits a wide range of perspectives from those which give the key role to the evaluators themselves (Scriven 1976), through those who focus on the importance of commissioners and managers (Stufflebeam 1983) to those who seek to engage a wider range of stakeholders (Patton 1997;Guba and Lincoln 1989), including some who place a particular emphasis on the participative processes (Cousins andEarl 1995, Torres andPreskill 2001) or on the engagement of the disempowered (House 1991, Fetterman 1996.…”