Among the continuing challenges naturalistic evaluators face is the practical need for
defensible conclusions. Guba and Lincoln's external evaluation audit represents one
response to this need. In this article, we share our firsthand experiences with such audits,
including the evaluation context and the audits'purpose, procedures, and findings. From
these experiences, we offer suggestions for future audit practice and discuss several
controversies surrounding the audit concept. We conclude with the call for further
discussion on these and other controversies, but also with an interim consensus that the
audit represents a viable metaevaluative tool for enhancing the internal quality, the
external defensibility, and thus the stature and utilization of naturalistic evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chelimsky, E. (1985) "Comparing and contrasting auditing and evaluation: some notes on their relationship." Evaluation Rev.9: 483-503.
2.
Denzin, N.K. (1978) The Research Act: An Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Eisner, E.W. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation: A Personal View . Philadelphia : Falmer.
4.
Geertz, C. (1973) "Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture," in C. Geertz (ed.) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
5.
Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln (1981) Effective Evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
6.
Halpern, E.S. (1983) "Auditing naturalistic inquiries: the development and application of a model." Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
7.
Hudson, J. and H.A. McRoberts (1984) "Auditing evaluation activities," pp. 219-236 in L. Rutman (ed.) Evaluation Research Methods: A Basic Guide (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
8.
Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
Pearsol, J.A. (1985) "The nature of explanation in qualitative evaluation ." Evaluation & the Health Professions8: 129-147.
10.
Ray, M.L. and E. Whitmore (1987) "Qualitative evaluation audits: Continuation of the discussion." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston.
11.
Schwandt, T.A. (1984) "Fostering disciplined inquiry through an educational audit." Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Evaluation Research Society and the Evaluation Network, San Francisco .
12.
Scriven, M. (1971) "Objectivity and subjectivity in educational research," in L. G. Thomas (ed.) Philosophical Redirections of Educational Research. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
13.
Smith, J.K. (1984) "The problem of criteria for judging interpretive inquiry." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis6: 379-391.
14.
Trow, M. (1957) "Comment on 'participant observation and interviewing: A comparison.'" Human Organization16: 33-35.
