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.
AakerJ.ShumakerJ. (1994). Looking back and looking forward: Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Little Rock, AK: Heifer International.
2.
AlkinM. C.ChristieC. A. (Eds.). (2005). Theorists' models in action. New directions for evaluation, No. 106. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
AubelJ. (1994). Participatory program evaluation: A manual for involving program stakeholders in the evaluation process. New York, NY: Catholic Relief Services.
BrandonP. R. (1998). Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 325–337.
6.
BrandonP. R. (1999). Involving program stakeholders in reviews of evaluators' recommendations for program revisions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 363–372.
7.
BrandonP. R.LinebergM. A.WangZ. (1993). Involving program beneficiaries in the early stages of evaluation: Issues of consequential validity and influence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 420–428.
8.
BrandonP. R.SinghJ. M. (2009). The strength of the methodological warrants for the findings of research on program evaluation use. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 123–157.
9.
BrisolaraS. (1998). The history of participatory evaluation and current debates in the field. In WhitmoreE. (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (pp. 25–41). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
ChambersR. (1992). Rapid but relaxed and participatory rural appraisal: Towards applications in health and nutrition. In ScrimshawN. S.GleasonG. R. (Eds.), Rapid assessment procedures–Qualitative methodologies for planning and evaluation of health related programmes (Section III, Chap. 24). Boston, MA: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC).
11.
ChambersR. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22, 953–969.
12.
ChelimskyE. (2008). A clash of cultures: Improving the “fit” between evaluative independence and the political requirements of a democratic society. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 400–415.
13.
ChristieC. A. (2003). What guides evaluation practice? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In ChristieC. A. (Ed.), The theory-practice relationship in evaluation (pp. 7–36). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
ChristieC. A. (2009). Analyzing the practice of evaluation: What do these cases tell us about theory?. In FitzpatrickJ.ChristieC. A.MarkM. M. (Eds.), Evaluation in action: Interviews with expert evaluators (pp. 393–436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
CorynC. L. S.NoakesL. A.WestineC. D.SchröterD. C. (2010). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice From 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1098214010389321,
16.
CousinsJ. B. (2003). Utilization efforts of participatory evaluation. In KellaghanT.StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 245–266). Dordrecht, UK: Kluwer.
17.
CousinsJ. B.DonohueJ. J.BloomG. A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators' self-reported opinions, practices and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17, 207–226.
18.
CousinsJ. B.EarlL. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397–418.
19.
CousinsJ. B.WhitmoreE. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In WhitmoreE. (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (pp. 5–23). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieE. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
22.
CullenA. (2009). The Politics and Consequences of Stakeholder Participation in International Development Evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
23.
DaigneaultS. M.JacobS. (2009). Toward accurate measurement of participation: Rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 330–348.
24.
DavidsonE. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
FeuersteinM. T. (1986). Partners in evaluation: Evaluating development and community programmes with participants. London, UK: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
26.
HallB. L. (1981). Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: A personal reflection. Convergence: An International Journal of Adult Education, 14, 6–19.
27.
HenryG. T.MarkM. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In ChristieC. A. (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 69–80). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
JohnsonK.GreenseidL. O.ToalS. A.KingJ. A.LawrenzF.VolkovB. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 377–410.
29.
KingJ. A. (2005). Participatory evaluation. In MathisonS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 291–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MarkM. M. (2007). Building a better evidence base for evaluation theory: Beyond general calls to a framework of types of research on evaluation. In SmithN. L.BrandonP. R. (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 111–134). New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
32.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
MillerR. L. (2010). Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 390–399.
34.
MillerR. L.CampbellR. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296–319.
35.
Morra ImasL. G.RistR.C. (2009). The road to results: Designing and conducting effective development evaluations. Washington, DC: World Bank.
36.
MorseJ. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieE. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Sage, CA: Sage.
37.
ParkP. (1992). The discovery of participatory research as a new scientific paradigm: Personal and intellectual accounts. The American Sociologist, 23, 29–42.
RebienC. C. (1996). Evaluating development assistance in theory and in practice. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
41.
RughJ. (1986). Self-evaluation: Ideas for participating evaluation of rural community development projects. Oklahoma City, OK: World Neighbors.
42.
RyanK.GreenK.LincolnY.MathisonS.MertensD. M. (1998). Advantages and challenges of using inclusive evaluation approaches in evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 101–122.
43.
ScrimshawN. S.,GleasonG. R. (Eds.), (1992) Rapid assessment procedures: Qualitative methodologies for planning and evaluation of health related programmes. Boston, MA: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC).
44.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
ShulhaL. M.CousinsJ. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. American Journal of Evaluation, 18, 195–208.
46.
SmithN. L. (1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 14, 237–242.
47.
StakeR.AbmaT. (2005). Responsive evaluation. In MathisonS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 376–379). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
StufflebeamD. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49.
StufflebeamD. L.ShinkfieldA. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
50.
TownsleyP. (1996). The history of RRA and PRA [Appendix 1]. In Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 358). Rome, Italy: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
51.
WeaverL.CousinsJ. B. (2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 1, 19–40.
52.
WeissC. H. (1986). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In HouseE. R. (Ed.), New directions for educational evaluation (pp. 145–157). Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
53.
World Bank. (1996). The World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington, DC: Author.
