Sammenlign metoder

	Kritisk programevaluering	Deltagerbaseret programevaluering
Fagområde	Feltmetoder	Feltmetoder
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Oprindelsesår	1970s–1990s (deliberative democratic strand formalised ~1999; transformative paradigm ~2009)	1992 (formal articulation); roots in participatory action research of the 1970s–1980s
Ophavsperson	Ernest House, Ken Howe, Donna Mertens (transformative/deliberative democratic evaluation traditions)	J. Bradley Cousins & Lorna Earl (formalization); Michael Q. Patton (utilization-focused lineage)
Type	Qualitative/mixed-methods evaluation approach	Applied evaluation approach
Oprindelig kilde	Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative Research and Evaluation. Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1606230787	Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397–418.
Aliasser	critical evaluation, emancipatory evaluation, critical-emancipatory program evaluation, transformative evaluation	participatory evaluation, collaborative evaluation, PE, stakeholder-involved evaluation
Relaterede	4	3
Resumé	Critical program evaluation is an approach to assessing programs that integrates critical theory with standard evaluation methods. It moves beyond measuring whether a program met its stated objectives to interrogating whose interests the program serves, how power and privilege shape its design and outcomes, and whether it advances or hinders equity and social justice. The approach draws on deliberative democratic evaluation (House and Howe) and the transformative paradigm (Mertens), treating evaluation as an inherently value-laden, politically situated practice.	Participatory program evaluation is an applied evaluation approach in which program stakeholders — staff, participants, funders, or community members — are actively involved as co-evaluators rather than passive subjects. By engaging those closest to the program in designing questions, collecting data, and interpreting findings, the approach aims to increase both the quality of the evaluation and the likelihood that findings will be understood, owned, and acted upon.