Mixed-method evaluation: A way of democratically engaging with difference1
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1035719X0200200207 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Author | Jennifer C Greene |
| Subject Matter | Mixed-Method |
Mixed-method
evaluation: a way of
democratically
engaging with
difference1
mixed-method
At this dawning of the new millennium, evaluation is widely practised in such important
Jennifer C Greene
societal domains as economic development, education, environmental management, family
welfare, and community well-being. But evaluation rarely fulfils its own potential to be a
powerful contributor to the health and vitality of these and other critical domains of social
life.
This, I argue, is because evaluation is commonly viewed as an activity practised at a
distance - apart from the contentious fray of political decision-making about resources and
priorities, in a space somehow shielded from special interests and advocacies, like a little
air bubble safe from contamination by bias and disease alike (Mark, Henry & Julnes
2000).
Yet, as a long line of argument has demonstrated, values, ethics, and politics are
intertwined with, rather than separable from, epistemology and knowledge generation
(Schwandt 2002). Evaluative results cannot be generated from, nor represent a neutral
position within, the politics of the contexts in which we work. So, like it or not, the
practice of evaluation itself either sanctions and reinforces, or alternatively challenges and
disrupts, key dimensions of these contexts, notably:
■ who has the right to be heard about what
■ what counts as legitimate knowledge
■ how decisions are made – who participates, what happens publicly and what happens
behind the scenes
■ what factors or criteria are valued in making decisions, and who gets to determine these
■ the ways that people relate in a given context – with trust or suspicion, respect or
disregard, reciprocity or selfishness, caring or neglect.
Jennifer Greene is a
Given the understanding that evaluation and its context are mutually constitutive –
Professor in the Department
notably with respect to values, norms, knowledge legitimisation, and relationships of
of Educational Psychology
power and influence – the question becomes: what kinds of values, norms, knowledge
at the University of Illinois
claims and power relationships do we as evaluators wish to influence? What ends do we
in Urbana-Champaign,
wish our evaluative practice to advance? Whose interests do we wish to serve?
Illinois, USA.
G r e e n e – M i x e d -m e t h o d e v a l u a t i o n
23
These questions point to the intersection of
Mixed methods, diverse
evaluation with democratic theory, for the ideals
perspectives
of democracy provide the most inspiring and
One approach to democratically engaged evaluation
inarguably the most defensible normative agenda
is to adopt a mixed-method way of thinking.
for evaluation. Ideas about democracy have
Mixing methods in evaluation connects to
surfaced in multiple evaluation discourses in
democratic evaluation through their shared valuing
recent years, anchored in the historic work on
of diverse perspectives and multiple ways of
democratic evaluation by Barry MacDonald and
knowing. Good mixed-method evaluation actively
colleagues at CARE, including Saville Kushner –
invites diverse ways of thinking and valuing to work
work that has also been advanced by a number
in concert toward better understanding. In good
of activist-scholars here in Australia, including
mixed-method evaluation, difference is thus
Robin McTaggart, Stephen Kemmis, Yoland
constitutive and generative (from Greene, Benjamin
Wadsworth and Marie Brennan. In the US, Ernie
& Goodyear 2001).
House’s work on deliberative democratic
Let me sketch three interrelated dimensions of
evaluation champions the democratic ideal of
evaluation practice and discuss how a mixed-
social justice via the principles of inclusiveness
method enactment of each invites democratic
and rational deliberation.
engagement with diversity:
Like these theorists, I wish to forge an
■ how we practise our craft or how we use our
evaluation practice that serves broad democratic
methodologies
ideals of participation, justice and equity by
meaningfully engaging with people in their lived
■ how we think about or theorise the phenomena
daily experiences. In my evaluative work, I am
we are studying
especially concerned with ensuring that the
interests of all legitimate stakeholders are
■ how we position ourselves in our work.
included, particularly those who are traditionally
My final point will address the issue of how we
left out of the conversation. I am a supporter of
position our work in society.
rational deliberation, but a sceptic about the
Mixed-methods in practice
possibility or even desirability of consensus.
Rather, I strive to find ways for diverse
Today, evaluators of all stripes routinely use a
stakeholders to talk and engage in dialogue with
variety of methods in the broad service of better
one another toward greater mutual
understanding. Available evidence suggests we do so
understanding, respect, tolerance, and
pragmatically, in response to the character of our
acceptance.
evaluation charge and the demands of our context,
I am not sure that evaluation, even with fully-
rather than for philosophical reasons or on
fledged, formalised deliberative forums (see
explicitly ideological grounds (see Greene &
McNeil 2002) can ever settle important public
Caracelli 2002).
debates. I am, however, committed to a vision of
Even so, I contend that mixed-method
evaluation as one important site for engaging
evaluation practice inherently engages the challenges
with the differences that are important in these
of human diversity and does so with profound
debates – differences of perspective, experience,
respect for human difference – and thereby invites
values and political ideology, and differences of
democratisation into the evaluation enterprise. Let
privilege, power, prestige and possibility. I believe
me support this contention with a brief
there is no more important political challenge in
(hypothetical) example.
today’s western democracies than finding ways
to genuinely understand and respect the
differences that currently besiege our everyday
lives.
BECOME A MEMBER TODAY!
▲ and enjoy all the benefits ...
Membership forms are available from the website
24
E v a l u a t i o n J o u r n a l o f A u s t r a l a s i a , V o l . 2 ( n e w s e r i e s ) , N o . 2, D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2
A community development evaluation
A community development organisation is partnering a local city government to sponsor a series of
sports leagues for young teenagers in the area. The idea is to provide an attractive and healthy
alternative for teenagers’
To continue reading
Request your trial