Empowerment Evaluation:

An Approach to Partnership Research

Dr. James Frankish, Senior Scholar

UBC Institute of Health Promotion Research
 Overview
• Background
• Definitions
• Use(s) of Empowerment Evaluation
• Methodologic Considerations
• Advantages & Limitations
• Concluding Remarks
 Evolution of Evaluation
• First Generation – Measurement Role of evaluator:
First school tests (1897); Binet’s work (1900’s); Expansion of school Technical
testing
• Second Generation – Description Describer
8 year study (1933); focus on implementation
• Third Generation – Judgment Judge
Countenance model (1967); Discrepancy eval (1971); CIPP (1971);
Goal Free (1973)
• Fourth Generation – Responsive Collaborator
Constructivist claims, concerns, issues of the stakeholder; Stage manager
Responsive evaluation; empowerment evaluation;
participatory/collaborative evaluation Change Agent

• From Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation

Evaluation, Sage Publications: Newbury Park
 Why Engage the Stakeholder?

• Evaluation is a process where society learns about

itself.

• Evaluations should contribute to enlightened

discussion of alternative plans for social action.

• In debates, liars figure and figures lie; the

evaluator has the responsibility to protect the
clients form both types of deception.
 Why Engage the Stakeholder?
• A theory of evaluation must be as much a theory
of political interaction as a theory of how to
determine facts.

• The evaluator is an educator; success is judged by

what others learn.

• Those who shape policy should reach decisions

with their eyes open; it is the evaluator's task to
illuminate the situation, not to dictate the decision.
From Cronbach, L.J and Associates (1980), Toward Reform of Program
Evaluation: Jossey-Bass: San Francisco
 Background

• Kurt Lewin (1946) “action research”

• Sociology & ‘action’ anthropology (e.g., Whyte)
• PAR in community development
• Action research in education
• Participatory research and planning
• Community psychology (Chavis, Fawcett, Florin,
Wandersman)
• Social movements
 Definitions
• EE is the use of evaluation concepts, techniques,
and findings to foster improvement and self-
determination (Fetterman et al. 1996)

• Perhaps what distinguishes EE most clearly from

its predecessors is its acknowledgement and deep
respect for people's capacity to create knowledge
about, and solutions to, their own experiences.
American Evaluation Association, 2005
 Characteristics of EE
• Unambiguous values orientation
• Necessarily collaborative
• Fundamentally democratic
 ‘Facets’ of EE
• Training
• Facilitation
• Advocacy
• Illumination
• Liberation
 Steps of EE
• Assessing Community Concerns & Resources
• Setting Missions & Objectives
• Developing Strategies & Action Plans
• Monitoring Process & Outcomes
• Communicating Information to Relevant
Audiences
• Documenting Progress
• Promoting Adaptation, Renewal &
Institutionalization
 Example Use(s) of
Empowerment Evaluation

• Accelerated Schools (Levin 1996)

• Kellogg Foundation (Millett 1996)
• Texas Community Justice (Keller 1996)
• HIV Prevention Education Initiative (Gomez 1996)
• Plan Quality Index (Butterfoss 1996)
• University-Community Housing (Suarez 1999)
 Fetterman’s Cautions re EE
• EE doesn’t abolish traditional evaluation

• EE may have challenges re ‘objectivity’

• Participants may be biased

• EE may be ‘contaminated’ by positions of

power and privilege
 Purported Advantages
& Limitations
• Increased stakeholder participation
• Increased relevance of ‘outcomes’
• Discrepancies between pre-ordained objectives &
expectations
• Program ‘reactance’
• Limited ‘stakeholder capacity’
• Evaluators must be comfortable as teachers
• EE may be time-consuming
• ‘Return on investments?’ (Smith 1998)
 Advantages & Limitations
• Empowerment evaluation, as developed thus far,
is very broad in scope and vague in detail.

• It is underdeveloped in its orientation to

knowledge building (epistemology), values,
appropriate programmatic context and use, and
some areas of method.

• More work needs to be done to clarify and

improve the empowerment evaluation technique if
it is to become a stronger model. Worthington 1999
 Distinguishing EE
From Other Approaches
• Context
• Purpose and social role
• Phenomena of interest
• Procedural rules
• Methods of justification
• Sanctions (Smith 1999)
 Advantages & Limitations
• Relative Advantage
• Compatibility
• Complexity
• Trial-ability
• Observe-ability
 Possible Implications of
Empowerment Evaluation
• Redirection of resources
• Need to adopt new or different roles
• New stakeholders from diverse sectors
• New forms of management
• New or refocused functions to address new targets
• New foci for evaluation
• New partnerships and intersectoral collaboration
• May need to develop new capacities and skills
 What We Need for Empowerment
Evaluation to Broadly Succeed

• Public support and political will

• Targeted resources
• Supportive legislation
• Policy and practice ‘champions’
• A supportive philosophy
• A cultural and policy framework
• Organizational/governance infrastructure
• Trained staff/improved education
• Remuneration of services/personnel
• Pragmatic accountability
 Contact Information
• Dr. C. James Frankish
Senior Scholar, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
Associate Director, Institute of Health Promotion Research
Associate Professor, Graduate Studies & Healthcare &
Epidemiology

Room 425, Library Processing Centre

2206 East Mall Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3
604-822-9205 Private fax 604-822-9228
IHPR Office: 604-822-2258
Fax: 604-822-9210
frankish@interchange.ubc.ca