Running Head: EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
Empowerment Evaluation in the Eyes of David Fetterman
Program Evaluation Theorist Paper
Yen Verhoeven
University of Rochester
Warner Graduate School of Education
2
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
3
Empowerment Evaluation in the Eyes of David Fetterman
Empowerment evaluation utilizes the theories, methods, techniques and processes found
in evaluation to create positive change for the stakeholders of a program and to the individuals
that the program serves. It does this by fostering self-awareness and self-efficacy in the program
stakeholders; marrying methodology, process and outcome together to improve the program
being evaluated (Fetterman, 1994, Fetterman, 2004).
Empowerment evaluation rests upon three theories: empowerment theory, selfdetermination theory and theories of use and action. Fetterman (2004) states that by undertaking
the process of designing and evaluating one’s program, participants attempt to “gain control,
obtain needed resources, and critically understand one’s social environment…in order to
[empower] develop skills so that they can become independent problem solvers and decision
makers” (p. 306). This process itself empowering, and rests on the belief that when provided
with the right conditions, the proper environment and the wherewithal to retrieve the proper
information required, stakeholders will “have the capacity for intelligent judgment and action”
(Wandersman et al., p. 33).
Within empowerment evaluation is the premise that individuals who are empowered will
become self-determined, and that this is a process that occurs during the planning and
implementation of the evaluation. Fetterman (2004) defines self-determination as “the ability to
chart one’s own course in life” (p. 308). Self-determination describes the individual as one who
has the capabilities of establishing goals and takes the necessary steps to gain the means and
resources to accomplish these goals.
Lastly, Fetterman (2004) discusses the theories of action and use in empowerment
evaluation. The theory of action can also be described as the program theory – a description
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
4
“about how a program or organization works” (Fetterman, 2004, p. 309). The theory of use is a
description of the program in action, based on the observations, evidence and behaviors collected
by the stakeholders during the evaluation process. During empowerment evaluation, the
participants engage in a process of comparing the theory of action against the theory of use. This
comparison is done periodically throughout the evaluation process to look for one of three
patterns. If the theory of action and the theory of use are said to be “in alignment,” then it means
that the program’s implementation is “on the right track,” or that what is being implemented is
similar or parallel to the theory of action developed at the initial start of the evaluation. If both
theories, upon comparison, are “out of alignment,” then it means that the theory of use has
somehow deviated from the theory of action. In such cases, the stakeholders need to determine
what is causing this divergence, and whether this is the way they would like the direction of their
program to take. When the theory of action and the theory of use are in conflict, then it means
that the program being implemented is completely different from what was originally described.
These cases indicate that there is a disconnect within the group or organization and reflects some
serious issues between program theory and actual implementation (Fetterman, 2004).
There are several distinct features of empowerment evaluation that differ from other
forms of evaluation. First and foremost, the purpose of an empowerment evaluation is to
improve the program and yield favorable outcomes for the stakeholders involved. Unlike many
evaluations that call for a judgment as to the success of a program, empowerment evaluations
inform the process of the evaluation in order to produce successful and meaningful results to all
the stakeholders involved (Fetterman, 1994, Fetterman, 2004, Wandersman et al., 2005).
Secondly, empowerment evaluation distinctly positions the evaluator as an expert, but not
as a facilitator in the field. In fact, the evaluator does not make the decisions on any part of the
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
5
evaluation – positioning the stakeholders as being completely in charge of the planning and
implementation process. The evaluation is created, designed and performed by and for the
stakeholders, with the evaluator taking on slightly different roles from the classic evaluation
(Fetterman, 1994).
In one role, the evaluator is a teacher or trainer for the people wishing to undertake a selfevaluation of their programs. In this case, the evaluator instructs people or organizations on the
tools of evaluation and empowerment evaluation. Fetterman (1994) mentions a self-evaluation
“Toobox” that can be adopted and implemented by people wishing to conduct simple evaluations
of their programs.
Another more common role is that the evaluator becomes the coach and facilitator for
others conducting their own evaluation. In this case, the evaluator serves as an expert, offering
advice and training to the program facilitators. They may also help ease the evaluation process
by pointing out and smoothing over any communication blocks that are perceived between
parties of stakeholders. As the participants become more trained and aware of the evaluation
process, the evaluator steps back and allows the facilitators to take full control. In all parts of the
evaluation, it is solely the stakeholders responsibility to collect the data and documentation,
analyze and conclude whether their program outcomes addressed the evaluation objectives and
fulfilled the goals that the organization or group of individuals stated initially. Because the
facilitators are involved in all steps of the evaluation, the process becomes internalized, and the
results hold more meaning for each stakeholder involved (Fetterman 1994).
Evaluators may also take on the role of an advocate for populations that are
underrepresented or have little voice – using the data and conclusions collected from an
evaluation to “write in public forums to change public opinion, embarrass power brokers, and
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
6
provide relevant information at opportune moments in the policy decision making forum”
(Fetterman, 1994, p. 7). Just like other evaluations, empowerment evaluations utilize both
qualitative and quantitative data to inform both the participants and the general public. An
evaluator may use this data to help speak for the marginalized populations that a particular
program serves.
Empowerment evaluations also position the stakeholders in a different way as well.
Instead of being a data source, where input and information is “mined” from the parties involved,
empowerment evaluations put facilitators fully in charge of the entire evaluation. Because the
facilitators still follow the processes and procedures of a normal evaluation, these may uncover
insights that would have never been apparent were they passive participants in the evaluation.
The process of having participants critically assessing their program can lead to self-realizations
in regards to finding solutions, accessing pockets of data that they were originally unaware,
pointing them to additional questions that they may want to ask and answer, and defines and
redefines roles that may have otherwise been ambiguous or misinterpreted.
Additionally, empowerment evaluations are empowering and liberating! By placing the
participants firmly in control of their own evaluation and giving them the tools to inform them on
their process and outcomes, individuals become self-determined, and have a larger buy-in
regarding the results and use of the results from the evaluation. Self-evaluation “demands that
program participants take part in establishing their goals and objectives, as well as in
determining the strategies required to realize their dreams” (Fetterman, 1994, p. 10). In doing so,
we break the long standing structures of power, but also liberate individuals from their
preconceived notions of traditional expectations and roles. The boundaries of funder, evaluator
and practitioner are deliberately blurred, placing them all on an equal playing field in the
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
7
evaluation process (Wandersman, 2005). This process allows for new roles to be redefined, and
sheds light on alternative solutions and opportunities that may not otherwise have been apparent
if people were in a more passive position.
Wandersman et al. (2005) states that there are ten principles of empowerment evaluation
that clearly distinguish it from other forms of evaluation:

Improvement

Community Ownership

Inclusion

Democratic participation

Community knowledge

Evidence-based strategies

Capacity building

Organizational learning

Accountability

Social justice
There are some underlying assumptions that go with empowerment evaluation. For
instance, we assume that most programs are directed towards having positive results for the
people that the program affects. Therefore, empowerment evaluation is designed to improve
people, programs organizations and communities during the evaluation process and after the
evaluation process. Most evaluations on the other hand, are geared towards making a judgment
as to the effectiveness of the program, and come from a neutral standpoint. In empowerment
evaluations, the stakeholders and the evaluator are clearly advocates for the program.
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
8
It is the community that owns the evaluation, and makes the decisions that direct the
evaluation. They are empowered and informed by the evaluator, but ultimately have the
decision-making power. Additionally, in empowerment evaluations invite the key stakeholders
and everyone in the program to participate in some meaningful way with the evaluation.
Methodology, results and evaluation plans become apparent to all the participants and ensures a
collective community of fairness and democratic participation. Community members are experts
on their experiences within the program and within their community. Their tacit knowledge is
equally valued and used/synthesized into useful new knowledge that can inform the process of
the evaluation and even the program being evaluated.
It is the evaluator’s role, during this process to advise participants on how to combine this
tacit knowledge with empirical, evidence-based strategies to create an effective evaluation and
program. Empowerment evaluation utilizes both qualitative and quantitative methods –
incorporating scholarly knowledge with expert community knowledge to point towards best
practices and evidence-based strategies that can be helpful to the participants in the evaluation.
It can also be the evaluator’s role to facilitate the organizational learning structure.
According to Wandersman et al., “Improvement is enhanced when there is a process that
encourages learning (organizational learning) and an organizational structure that encourages
learning (a learning organization). The process of learning includes when a group acquires and
masters new tools and methods to improve the evaluation process. This learning must be
ongoing and valued in order for problem solving, effective decision making and meaningful
reflection to occur.
By learning the steps to conducting an evaluation, it positions the participants in a place
of power where they can enhance all steps in the planning and implementation process of
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
9
program planning and implementation. This is what Wandersman et al. (2005) refers to as
“capacity building.” The learning of each step opens pathways towards empowerment to
improve the evaluation and the program itself. In other words, through the process of learning
how to evaluate the program, and in implementing the program evaluation itself, participants are
now also informed on utilizing this information to improve the program directly.
Wandesrsman et al. (2005) emphasizes the role of accountability. Empowerment
evaluation holds all the stakeholders accountable for their specific pieces of the evaluation, and
they are held accountable to each other. Additionally, this accountability extends to the program
as a whole, with a focus on outcome. However, this outcome is valued and understood because
it has been informed by a rigorous evaluation process performed by the participants. Because the
process informs the outcome and is performed in a visible transparent nature, participants can
trace the “chain of reasoning” backwards and identify the pieces in the program worked well or
did not work that contributed to the program’s end result.
Lastly, through empowering the participants and by improving the program,
empowerment evaluation is strongly committed to social justice. The process recognizes social
inequities and addresses them – striving to find solutions by helping people use the information
from evaluation to improve the people, the program and the community at a variety of levels.
I conclude with a generalization between normal evaluation and empowerment
evaluation. Just as we move from a teacher centered banking system of classroom pedagogy, I
draw the same parallel to the “typical” program evaluation where an “objective” evaluator is the
expert, calls the shots and passes judgment on the passive stakeholders of the program.
Although there are different types of program evaluation theorists, I continue to see that the
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
10
“value” of the program is still in the hands of the evaluator. Just like a classroom with this kind
of pedagogy, programs can get by, but I do not think the evaluation is as valued as it could be.
Empowerment evaluation, in contrast, is very similar to the “new” ways of teaching –
informed by a post modernist framework that clearly positions the participants in the driver’s
seat. Just as student-centered, inquiry based pedagogy is incredibly effective in the classroom, I
believe that empowerment evaluation can be equally valuable to the program participants, for
many of the same reasons. When the participants are allowed to take charge of their own
learning, they value and internalize the experience and it can become enlightening, empowering,
and liberating.
EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
11
References
Fetterman, D.M. (1994) Empowerment Evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
Fetterman, D.M. (2004) Branching out or standing on a limb : Looking to our roots for insight.
In Alkin, M. (Ed), Evaluation roots, (pp. 304-318). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage
Publications.
Wandersman, A., Snell-Johns, J., Lentz, B.E., Fetterman, D.M., Keener, D.C., Livet, M., Imm,
P., & Flashpohler, P. (2005). The principles of empowerment evaluation. In Fetterman,
D. & Keener, D. (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice, (pp. 123-256).
New York: Lucerne Publishing.