Questions & Answers
What Is Participatory Evaluation (PE)? What Are Its Roots?
Participatory evaluation (PE) is a method of inquiry in the family of participatory
and action research. These traditions in research and evaluation grew out of
conflicts and contradictions about how knowledge is created and used. There
are at least three major traditions in participatory research and evaluation,
all of which are concerned with democratizing the research process, and making
the inquiry and the findings relevant and useful to the stakeholders for informing
future actions.
- The participatory action research model based on the Freirian theories of
education (Fals-Borda, Tandon, Hall) grew out of the contradictions of using
coercive, non-participatory field research methods in the largely participation-oriented
field of adult education. In this tradition, issues of building power and
promoting liberation and social justice are central.
- The participatory action research model drawn from the action research tradition
(Whyte) is based on the contradiction between management and workers in organizational
decision making. In this model, participation is aimed at increasing front-line
workers' sense of empowerment, though not necessarily at changing the basic
power relationships among members of the organization.
- Participatory evaluation (PE) notes the contradiction between an evaluation's
design and findings, and the lack of usefulness or relevance the information
has for primary consumers and stakeholders (Cousins & Earl, 1992). PE
draws from either or both of the previous traditions for its theoretical basis,
but is distinctly evaluative in its purpose and design.
PE approaches seek to be practical, useful, formative and empowering: practical
in that they respond to the needs, interests and concerns of their primary users;
useful because findings are disseminated in ways in which primary users can
use them; and formative because they seek to improve program outcomes. Finally,
the more the project is determined, implemented, and used by participants, the
more empowering the experience will be.
How Does PE Differ From Other Forms of Evaluation?
PE approaches usually are more appropriate for a formative, rather than summative
evaluation. Participating organizations must understand that the goal is to
provide information for program improvement or organizational development, not
necessarily to make definitive statements about program outcomes. The agenda
for the evaluation is not set by an outside funding source, a federal agency,
or by the evaluator. Rather, in PE, both the role of the evaluator and that
of the organization change. The evaluator is no longer the expert, but instead
a teacher, collaborator, and participant in a process. Organization members
are integrally involved in establishing the questions to be asked and the methods
to be used, in collecting and analyzing data, and in writing up findings. Staff,
clients, board members, and even interested community members, are involved
in deciding whether to evaluate, what to evaluate, how to draw conclusions,
how and when to disseminate findings, and how and when to implement recommendations.
This means that rarely are PE findings generalizable to other projects.
What Are the Advantages of PE Approaches?
Since it is grounded in the experience of staff, clients, and participants,
PE is more likely to provide information that is useful to program administrators
and decision makers. PE enhances utilization of evaluation findings by changing
the social construction of the organization. Rather than receiving (and resisting)
an outside evaluation report, the process of participating in an evaluation
gives ownership of the information to those most involved in carrying out the
work of the organization: the staff, administrators, board members, clients,
and participants. PE is also viewed as more flexible and less rigid than traditional
evaluation approaches. PE often results in cognitive, affective, and political
change within an organization—including increased communication between
staff members, positive impacts on program development, and higher quality evaluations.
| |
Further Reading
Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397-418.
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (Eds.). (1991). Action and knowledge:
Breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research. New York: The
Apex Press.
Hall, B. L. (1992, Winter). From margins to center? The development and
purpose of participatory research. The American Sociologist, 15-28.
Tandon, R. (1988). Social transformation and participatory research.
Convergence, 21, 5-15.
Whyte, W. F. (1989). Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory
action research. Sociological Forum, 4(3), 367-385.
Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
|
What Are the Disadvantages of PE?
PE may be much more time-consuming for both the evaluator and the organization
than a traditional goal-oriented evaluation where the questions to be asked
and the methods to be used are set in advance, or established by the evaluator
working with only one or two administrators. Staff will need to be allowed time
from regular duties in order to participate effectively in the evaluation; clients
and participants may need special assistance to become integrally involved in
the evaluation. To assure adequate participation by all involved, rewards and
consequences must be clearly spelled out.
For an entire evaluative process to be participatory, the details of the evaluation
cannot be fully identified in advance (such as to a funding source). This is
because specific reporting criteria or other evaluation guidelines dictated
by sponsors or funders limit the participation and input of both evaluators
and non-evaluators. The final result of a truly participatory process is entirely
in the hands of the participants, not the evaluator or an outside source. This
can empower participants, but means that in order to use PE, the organization
must be committed to the endeavor and the context must be appropriate. It is
always possible, however, to use some participatory methods at different stages
of the evaluation process (such as in generating important evaluative questions
at the beginning, or in developing conclusions based on data findings at the
end), but not commit to an entire participatory process.
Carole C. Upshur, Senior Research Associate
Esterla Barreto-Cortez, Research Assistant
Mauricio Gastón Institute
100 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
Tel: 617-287-5790
> Go to next article
> Go back to Table of Contents
|
