The 2009 Claremont Debates: The Promise and Pitfalls of Utilization-Focused and Empowerment Evaluation
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Hundreds of evaluators visit the Claremont Colleges in southern California each year to discuss a wide range of topics related to improving the quality of evaluation practice. Debates between thought leaders in the field have been one of the most popular and informative ways to advance understanding about how best to practice evaluation in contemporary times.
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to provide a written transcript of the 2009 Claremont Evaluation Debates. The first debate is between Michael Quinn Patton and Michael Scriven on the promise and pitfalls of utilization-focused evaluation. The second debate is between David Fetterman, Michael Quinn Patton, and Michael Scriven on the promise and pitfalls of empowerment evaluation.
Setting: The debates occurred at the Claremont Graduate University on August 23-24, 2009. Several hundred evaluators from around the world also viewed and participated in the debates via a live webcast.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Research Design: Not applicable.
Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.
Findings: Not applicable.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Donaldson, S.I., & Christie, C.A. (2005). The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey versus Scriven. Determining causality in program evaluation and applied research: Should experimental evidence be the gold standard? Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v2i3.101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v2i3.101
Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. (2008). What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995634 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995634
Donaldson , S. I., & Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium. Mahawah, NJ: Lwrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606556
Fetterman, D. F. (2005). In response to Drs. Patton and Scriven. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 418- 420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005278769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005278769
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Patton responds to Fetterman, Wandersman, and Snell- Johns. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 429-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005279214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005279214
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 58. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1647
Scriven, M. (2005). A note on David Fetterman's response. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005279215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005279215
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.3