|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Stakeholder-Based Evaluation and Value Judgments
Melvin M. Mark
Pennsylvania State University
R. Lance Shotland
Pennsylvania State University
The nature of values in stakeholder-based evaluations is discussed. One key value judgment involves the selection of stakeholder groups for participation. In the first major section of this article, the role of values in such selection is emphasized by considering two dimensions on which stakeholder groups may vary—power and legitimacy. It is shown that the selection of stakeholder groups can be based on a rationale for stakeholder-based evaluation; however, the choice of a rationale for stakeholder participation is itself a value judgment, implicitly or explicitly. Further, in implementing a rationale, value judgments are required, particularly if the rationale involves empowerment and democratization. In a second section, the consequences of stakeholder par ticipation are discussed. Although numerous commentaries imply positive effects, much is not known, such as the type or level of stakeholder involvement required for effective participation. Further, stakeholder participation may serve as a means of preempting criticism by stakeholders, or may be a form of pseudoempowerment. Ironically, the evaluator may autocratically designate which groups participate in a process meant to empower democratically. Finally, some suggestions are made about how evaluators might better deal with the value judgments inherent in stakeholder-based evaluations, and, more generally, how stakeholder-based approaches to evaluation might be improved.
Evaluation Review, Vol. 9, No. 5,
605-626 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8500900504
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. L. Franklin and C. Ebdon
Are we All Touching the Same Camel?: Exploring a Model of Participation in Budgeting
The American Review of Public Administration,
June 1, 2005;
35(2):
168 - 185.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Unruh and M. Bullis
Facility-to-Community Transition Needs for Adjudicated Youth With Disabilities
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
January 1, 2005;
28(2):
67 - 79.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. D. Butterfoss, V. Francisco, and E. M. Capwell
Stakeholder Participation in Evaluation
Health Promot Pract,
April 1, 2001;
2(2):
114 - 119.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. V. Michalski and J. B. Cousins
Multiple Perspectives on Training Evaluation: Probing Stakeholder Perceptions in a Global Network Development Firm
American Journal of Evaluation,
March 1, 2001;
22(1):
37 - 53.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Mark, G. T. Henry, and G. Julnes
Toward an Integrative Framework for Evaluation Practice
American Journal of Evaluation,
June 1, 1999;
20(2):
177 - 198.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Brown
Book Review
Health Educ Behav,
June 1, 1997;
24(3):
388 - 391.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. B. Cousins, J. J. Donohue, and G. A. Bloom
Collaborative Evaluation in North America: Evaluators' Self-reported Opinions, Practices and Consequences1
American Journal of Evaluation,
October 1, 1996;
17(3):
207 - 226.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. R. Brandon, M. A. Lindberg, and Z. Wang
Involving Program Beneficiaries in the Early Stages of Evaluation: Issues of Consequential Validity and Influence
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
January 1, 1993;
15(4):
420 - 428.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. G. Bedeian
Contemporary Challenges in the Study of Organizations
Journal of Management,
June 1, 1986;
12(2):
185 - 201.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
