In Living Color: Qualitative Methods in Educational Evaluation

  • Linda Mabry
Part of the Kluwer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 9)

Abstract

This is interview data collected in the course of studying an educational program in four Chicago schools partnered with neighborhood arts agencies. It is empirical data, but it is unlike test scores, costs per student, or graduation rates . It is vividlyexperiential, differently compelling. It is qualitative data.

Keywords

Explosive Assure Expense Boulder Decon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abma, T. (1997). Sharing power, facing ambiguity. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3 Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 105–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, R.S. (Ed.). (1981). Applied strategies for curriculum evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  3. Brodkey, L. (1989). On the subjects of class and gender in “The literacy letters.” College English, 51, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5–12, 18.Google Scholar
  6. Chelimsky, E. (1994). Evaluation: Where we are. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, L.J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Datta, L. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. In C.S. Reichardt, & S.F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 153–170.Google Scholar
  9. Datta, L. (1997). Multimethod evaluations: Using case studies together with other methods. In E. Chelimsky, & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 344–359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Derrida, J. (1976). On grammatology (trans. G. Spivak). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dilthey, W. (1883). The development of hermeneutics. In H.P. Richman (Ed.), W. Dilthey: Selected writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eisner, E.W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 5–9.Google Scholar
  16. Eisner, E.W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: A personal view. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Fetterman, D.M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1979). What is an author? Screen, Spring.Google Scholar
  21. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.I. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, J.C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530–544). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Greene, J.C. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 171–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for multimethod evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.Google Scholar
  26. Greene, J.G. & Schwandt, T.A. (1995). Beyond qualitative evaluation: The significance of “positioning” oneself. Paper presentation to the International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Monograph 8. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  28. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–92.Google Scholar
  29. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Hedrick, T.E. (1994). The quantitative-qualitative debate: Possibilities for integration. In C.S. Reichardt & S.F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 145–152.Google Scholar
  31. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 403–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. House, E.R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. House, E.R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C. S. Reichardt, & S. F Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 113–122.Google Scholar
  34. House, E.R., & Howe, K.R. (1998). The issue of advocacy in evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(2), 233–236.Google Scholar
  35. House, E.R., & Howe, K.R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. House, E.R., Marion, S.F., Rastelli, L., Aguilera, D., & Weston, T. (1996). Evaluating R&D impact. University of Colorado at Boulder: Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  37. Howe, K. (1992). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. American Journal of Education, 100(2), 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, P. (1992). World Bank financing of education: Lending, learning and development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31–60.Google Scholar
  41. LeCompte, M.D. & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mabry, L. (Ed.). (1997). Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3. Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mabry, L. (1998a). Case study methods. In H.J. Walberg, & A.J. Reynolds (Eds.), Advances in educational productivity: Vol. 7. Evaluation research for educational productivity (pp. 155–170). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mabry, L. (1998b). A forward LEAP: A study of the involvement of Beacon Street Art Gallery and Theatre in the Lake View Education and Arts Partnership. In D. Boughton & K.G. Congdon (Eds.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 4. Evaluating art education programs in community centers: International perspectives on problems of conception and practice. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mabry, L. (1999a). Circumstantial ethics. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 199–212.Google Scholar
  48. Mabry, L. (1999b, April). On representation. Paper presented an invited symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  49. Mabry, L. (1999c, November). Truth and narrative representation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  50. Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.Google Scholar
  51. McLean, L.D. (1997). If in search of truth an evaluator. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 139–153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mertens, D.M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 1–14.Google Scholar
  53. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Newman, D.L. & Brown, R.D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Phillips, D.C. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will not wane. Education and Urban Society, 20, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M. (1991). Education for development: An analysis of investment choices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Reichardt, C.S., & Rallis, S.F. (Eds.) (1994). The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61.Google Scholar
  60. Rossi, P.H. (1994). The war between the quals and the quants: Is a lasting peace possible? In C.S. Reichardt, & S.F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 23–36.Google Scholar
  61. Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Saito, R. (1999). A phenomenological-existential approach to instructional social computer simulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  63. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.Google Scholar
  64. Scriven, M. (1997). Truth and objectivity in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky, & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 477–500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Scriven, M. (1998, November). An evaluation dilemma: Change agent vs. analyst. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  66. Scriven, M., Greene, J., Stake, R., & Mabry, L. (1995, November). Advocacy for our clients: The necessary evil in evaluation? Panel presentation to the International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  67. Seymour-Smith, C. (1986). Dictionary of anthropology. Boston: G. K. Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Shadish, W.R., Jr., Cook, T.D. & Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, M.L. (1994). Qualitative plus/versus quantitative: The last word. In C.S. Reichardt & S.F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 37–44.Google Scholar
  70. Stake, R.E. (1973). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Paper presented at conference on New Trends in Evaluation, Göteborg, Sweden. Reprinted in G.F. Madaus, M.S. Scriven & Stufflebeam, D.L. (1987), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 287-310). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  71. Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8.Google Scholar
  72. Stake, R.E. (1997). Advocacy in evaluation: A necessary evil? In E. Chelimsky, & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 470–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Stake, R., Migotsky, C., Davis, R., Cisneros, E., DePaul, G., Dunbar, C. Jr., et al. (1997). The evolving synthesis of program value. Evaluation Practice, 18(2), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stronach, I., Allan, J. & Morris, B. (1996). Can the mothers of invention make virtue out of necessity? An optimistic deconstruction of research compromises in contract research and evaluation. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4): 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stufflebeam, D.L. (1997). A standards-based perspective on evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3 Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 61–88). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  77. von Wright, G.H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  78. Wolcott, H.F. (1990). On seeking — and rejecting — validity in qualitative research. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–152). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  79. Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Wolcott, H.F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.Google Scholar
  81. Worthen, B.R., Sanders, J.R., & Fitzpatrick, J.L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Mabry
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State University VancouverVancouverUSA

Personalised recommendations