Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Participatory Evaluation× | Empowerment Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Public Policy | Public Policy |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 1998 | 1994 |
| Originator≠ | J. Bradley Cousins & Elizabeth Whitmore | David Fetterman |
| Type≠ | Collaborative, stakeholder-engaged evaluation approach | Participatory, capacity-building evaluation approach |
| Seminal source≠ | Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 5–23. DOI ↗ | Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1–15. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases≠ | Collaborative Evaluation, Stakeholder-Based Evaluation, Practical Participatory Evaluation | Fetterman Empowerment Evaluation, Self-Determination Evaluation |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | Participatory evaluation is a family of approaches in which stakeholders — program staff, beneficiaries, community members — are engaged as active partners in conducting the evaluation rather than as passive subjects of it. In their influential 1998 framing, J. Bradley Cousins and Elizabeth Whitmore distinguished two streams: practical participatory evaluation, oriented to improving program decisions and use, and transformative participatory evaluation, oriented to empowerment and social justice. What unites them is shared control of the inquiry, but they vary along dimensions of who participates, how much control they hold, and how deeply they are involved. | Empowerment evaluation is a participatory approach in which an evaluator acts as a coach and critical friend, helping program staff and community members evaluate their own work so as to foster improvement and self-determination. Introduced by David Fetterman in his 1994 presidential address to the American Evaluation Association, it deliberately shifts control of the evaluation to the people running the program. The goal is not only to assess merit and worth but to build the group's internal capacity for evaluative thinking and to embed evaluation as a routine, owned part of organisational life. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|