CHAPTER 2 21
2.3 Theory of Evaluation 25
2.3.4 Empowerment Evaluation 38
Page 38
determined in advance. Participants will require time off from their regular duties in order to participate effectively in the evaluation process. In addition, clients and participants may require special assistance to become integrally involved in the evaluation. In order for the entire evaluative process to be participatory, the details of the evaluation cannot be fully identified in advance, because use of specific reporting criteria or other evaluation guidelines dictated by sponsors or funders, will limit the participation and input of both evaluators and non-evaluators. Upshur and Barreto- Cortez (1995:8) propose that a truly participatory process is entirely in the hands of the participants, not the evaluator or an outside source. This can empower participants, but it means that in order to use participatory evaluation, the organisation must be committed to the endeavour and the context must be appropriate.
Participatory evaluation allows evaluators, participants, managers and those directly and indirectly affected, to work together in an open exchange of information where all have an opportunity to participate in the debate. This process of collaboration creates new demands for evaluation. The aim of evaluation moves beyond its contribution towards an understanding of the effects of the phenomena under study and of the generation of learning processes, to a stage of how this knowledge and learning can be used in taking decisions. Evaluation plays a new role in which the interchange of information, and formal and informal learning, demystifies the process of evaluation itself, clarifies the function and expectations of what evaluation can offer, and generates mutual trust, helping actors to know and understand how others see the world.
Page 39
“An evaluation approach that aims to increase the probability of achieving programme success by:
(1) Providing stakeholders with tools for assessing the planning, implementation, and self-evaluation of their program, and
(2) Mainstreaming evaluation as part of the planning and management of the program/organization.” (Wandersman, Snell-Johns, Lentz, Fetterman, Keener, Livet, Imm, and Flaspohler, 2005:28).
Fetterman and Wandersman (2007:180) argue that they did not abandon the original definition but rather they have explicitly built on the existing definition in pursuit of greater conceptual clarity.
One of the distinctions of empowerment evaluation is that the participants are encouraged to perform their own evaluations with the assistance, guidance and coaching of the evaluator (Fetterman, 1996). In essence, empowerment evaluation is democratic since it encourages active participation in the process and provides a platform for discussing relevant concerns. This method of evaluation attempts to increase the rights of self-determination by using various research methods. The researcher’s role is to educate the participants on the principles of evaluation.
Consequently, the role of the evaluator is to act as a trainer and a teacher in the evaluation process. Empowerment evaluation’s aim in not only to evaluate the quality of the implementation but more importantly to develop the existing execution process of the organisation or programme.
In addition, empowerment evaluation changes the evaluation context whereby, the assessment of the programme’s worth is not the final stage. The understanding behind this is that the merit of a programme is fluid and will change as the context changes over time. As a consequence, participants develop evaluation skills and learn to critically appraise their progress continually through the evaluator’s supervision and training. Fetterman and Wandersman (2007:182) state that philosophically, self- determination is intended to be a fundamental outcome of this approach.
Page 40
The process of empowerment evaluation comprises four stages. The first stage involves taking stock of the present situation of the evaluation object. This is undertaken by collecting all essential factors connected with the activity. Based on these factors, one can create a base line from which future progress can be measured.
The second stage of empowerment evaluation is setting the goals. The importance of this stage is that the setting of goals is proportioned to the present condition of the evaluation object. In so doing, the goals will provide the trajectory in which the function should go in future. Subsequently, the goals are proportioned to the activity.
The third stage is developing the strategies. The participants involved in the evaluation are apportioned responsibility in selecting and developing strategies to accomplish programme objectives. The fourth stage is recording the progress. All involved in the evaluation process have an opportunity to influence the way the information produced by the function and evaluation, and the possible development, will be documented (Fetterman, Kaftarian, and Wandersman, 1996).
Despite empowerment evaluation’s popularity, it is also a highly contested approach (see Miller and Campbell, 2006:297). The same authors argue that empowerment evaluation lacks conceptual clarity which makes it relatively indistinguishable from a variety of the other participatory and collaborative approaches. Since it draws on dialogue relating to social change and from illuminative evaluation jargon, in its pursuit for social justice, it has been suggested that it has become conceptually ambiguous (Miller and Campbell, 2006:299). Furthermore, because it emphasizes democratic processes to augment buy-in and participant ownership, it further entrenches its inarticulate conceptual boundaries given that it shares numerous similarities with other capacity-building approaches.
A second criticism which has been levelled at empowerment evaluation is that there is a lack of accord in its practical implementation (see Miller and Campbell, 2006:305).
These authors argue that there appears to be insufficient clarity in terms of identifying programme evaluators which fall within the ambit of an empowerment evaluation framework. Thus the agreement of its execution has been contested.
Page 41
Another critique of the method is that there is insufficient empirical evidence to suggest that it satisfies its intended purpose. It has been contended that the means for assessing the success of an empowerment evaluation are underdeveloped and as a result, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that it is an empowering approach.
Other critiques include its over-reliance on self-study which may hinder the evaluations objectivity, and the lack of rigour between differing evaluations which can result in fake evaluations.
According to Trochim (2006) debates rage as to how to decide to choose an evaluation strategy. Each strategy claims superiority of its position. Most good evaluators are familiar with all four categories and borrow from each as the need arises. There is no inherent incompatibility between these broad strategies as each strategy has a unique advantage. Recently, attention has increasingly moved to how the results from different evaluation strategies can be integrated. Academic literature claims there is no simple answer. Differences in opinion with respect to an appropriate evaluation strategy may stem from divergent notions of the purpose of evaluation.