This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mark, M. M. Articles by Shotland, R. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mark, M. M. Articles by Shotland, R. L. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Stakeholder-Based Evaluation and Value Judgments

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    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]