Evaluator as Steward of Citizen Deliberation

Abstract

I suggest that evaluators have much to offer in being stewards of citizen deliberation during the conduct of evaluative inquiry, especially in regards to the professional community’s guiding principle of “Responsibility to the general and public welfare.” The deliberative forum is reviewed as one evaluation methodology for bringing the theory of deliberative democratic evaluation into practice. The paper offers a number of reflections from the field based on my experiences of adopting a stewardship role during my evaluation practice. These include: (1) working with the tacit program culture, (2) consciousness of risk, (3) creating dissonance, (4) the role of coaching, and (5) sustaining deliberation in program communities. Examples are offered in thinking about constructing deliberative forums throughout evaluation processes in practical contexts. The paper positions evaluation practice as an important mechanism for contributing toward a civil society and asks evaluators to consider their role in being stewards of citizen deliberation.

The OPTIMISE project: protocol for a mixed methods, pragmatic, quasi-experimental trial to improve primary care delivery to refugees in Australia

“…To further understand regional partnership needs, each RPT performed a focused scientific and grey literature review, analysed secondary data extracted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census, Department of Home Affairs Settlement Reporting Facility, settlement agencies, public health services and local councils, and conducted a series of key informant interviews with health service managers, policy advisors and clinicians. The three RPTs then met in a deliberative forum [28] to determine priority interventions, from which four core areas of activity were chosen; Physical and mental health assessments : GPs and practice nurses will have relevant skills and knowledge to conduct comprehensive refugee physical and mental health assessments. Refugee identification : general practice clinics will have accurate and accessible mechanisms in place to record and retrieve refugee identification, status, country of birth or ethnicity, year of arrival, and need for interpreter. Use of interpreters : practices will have a practice protocol for using interpreters, and ensure that staff have appropriate knowledge and skills in their role of supporting use of interpreters . Referral pathways : practice staff will gain an understanding of refugee health referral pathways in the region (including available services, eligibility requirements and referral procedures).…”

Critical social theory: Core tenets, inherent issues

“…Advocating for democratic ideals does not mean that the evaluator has a predetermined solution for the problems or oppressions articulated by the stakeholders. What it does mean, however, is that critical theory evaluation offers a variety of pedagogical processes that seek to foster the development of a more socially just society, whether by strengthening social capital through citizen deliberation (MacNeil, 2002) or dialoguing about the moral import of a practice (Schwandt, 1989).…”

Falling forward: Lessons learned from critical reflection on an evaluation process with a prisoner reentry program

“…We planned to then follow up with discussion in heterogeneous groups about the areas of agreement and disagreement about the elements of successful transitions. This process was believed to mirror democratic community deliberation (MacNeil, 2000(MacNeil, , 2002. Thus, through stakeholder interviews, we sought to create opportunities for residents to engage in deliberative dialogue, exercise self-efficacy, and codetermine with other stakeholders their needs for successful transition.…”

“…The evaluation literature, particularly democratic approaches to program evaluation and design, was selected to guide the revised process. Democratic approaches to program evaluation begin with the premises that (a) decision making is a shared process among all parties who have an interest in a particular program or issue; and (b) the process of program evaluation has the potential to mirror and teach deliberative dialogue among diverse community citizens (see, for example, MacNeil, 2000MacNeil, , 2002. This participatory approach was selected intentionally, to offer residents an experience of community engagement that could counter the prison experience.…”