Applying the Model for Collaborative Evaluations to a Multicultural Seminar in a Nonprofit Setting

Main Article Content

Liliana Rodríguez-Campos
Wes Martz
Rigoberto Rincones-Gómez

Abstract

Background: The diversity within organizations and the stakeholders served require an awareness and appreciation of multiple value perspectives. The challenges with respect to the handling of these perspectives and inappropriate biases resulting from poorly chosen value premises reinforce the importance of seeking out and engaging diverse and relevant evaluation stakeholders.


Purpose: This article addresses stakeholder engagement in evaluations by presenting an application of the Model for Collaborative Evaluations (MCE) to the evaluation of a multiculturalism seminar.


Setting: A nonprofit organization that promotes an understanding of multicultural environments through various programs, including a multiculturalism seminar.


Intervention: The article examines the application of the MCE to an organization.


Research Design: Single-case study.


Data Collection and Analysis: The collaboration team consisted of five members plus an external evaluator. The steps outlined in the MEC were strictly adhered to for fidelity purposes. Data collection was completed using interviews and written questionnaires.


Findings: The MEC approach that was used in this formative evaluation actively engaged the key stakeholders during the evaluation process. With a collaborative approach to evaluation decision- making, the collaboration members were able to share their various points of view and, as a result, there was a lower likelihood that a particular idea would be overlooked. The MCE enhanced the quality of the evaluation by establishing an open and shared evaluation environment while attending to the intended and unintended effects of the collaborative relationships. In addition, the MEC provided increased shared ownership in the evaluation that also led to an increased quality of information for decision-making and receptivity of the findings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rodríguez-Campos, L., Martz, W., & Rincones-Gómez, R. (2010). Applying the Model for Collaborative Evaluations to a Multicultural Seminar in a Nonprofit Setting. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i13.253
Section
Research Articles

References

American Evaluation Association. (2004). Guiding principles for evaluators. [Brochure]. Fairhaven, MA: Author.

Arnold, M. E. (2006). Developing evaluation capacity in extension 4-H field faculty: A framework for success. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 257-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006287989

Cousins, J. B, Donohue, J. J., & Bloom, G. A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators' self- reported opinions, practices, and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17, 207-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409601700302

Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397-418. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014004397

Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230115

Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Overcoming our negative reputation: Evaluation becomes known as a helping profession. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 355-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200311

Donaldson, S. I., Gooler, L. E., & Scriven, M. (2002). Strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300303

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Gajda, R. & Koliba, C. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational collaboration: A school improvement perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006296198

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How to access systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to access and evaluate educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martz, W. (2008). Evaluating organizational effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(07). (Publication No. AAT 3323530).

Menges, R. J. (1985). Career-span faculty development. College Teaching, 33, 181-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1985.10532317

O'Sullivan, R. G. (2004). Practicing evaluation: A collaborative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985468

O'Sullivan, R. G. & D'Agostino, A. (2002). Promoting evaluation through collaboration: Findings from community-based programs for young children and their families. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 372-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638902401462466

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2005). Collaborative evaluations. Tamarac, FL: Llumina Press.

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Scriven, M. (2005). Checklists. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 53-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scriven, M. (2007). The logic and methodology of checklists. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/papers/logic&methodology_dec07.pdf

Telfair, J. & Leviton, L. (1999). The community as client: Improving the prospects for useful evaluation findings. New Directions for Evaluation, 83, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1142

Weiss, C. (1988). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.