The issue of diversity in evaluations is important for the inclusiveness of marginalized groups. Evaluators can use the inclusive evaluation model for access to diverse voices. In addition, this model represents the views of those with the least power.

The inclusive evaluation model follows certain theoretical assumptions which include alternative paradigms and methods. For example, the interpretive/constructivist paradigm, the transformative paradigm, feminist methods, and participatory evaluations. The alternative paradigms and methods provide better balance to evaluations than traditional postpositivist paradigms.

The interpretive/constructivist paradigm argues for the recognition of multiple socially constructed realities. Interaction between the evaluator and participants is essential to making their values explicit and creating knowledge that will be the result of the study. Moreover, this paradigm is characterized as using mainly qualitative methods in a hermeneutical and dialectical manner.

The transformative paradigm places central importance on the lives and experiences of marginalized groups. The evaluator must analyze power relationships, link the results of social inquiry to action, and link the results of the evaluation to larger question of social inequity and social justice. This paradigm assumes that diverse viewpoints exist with regard to many social realities and need to be placed within a political, cultural, and economic value system in order to understand the basis for the differences. Furthermore, objectivity is valued but it is necessary for the evaluator to be involved in the communities impacted by the program to a significant degree. The transformative paradigm uses both quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, with the impacted community involved in the methodological and programmatic decisions.

The advantages of using an inclusive evaluation are many. Inclusive evaluations are more democratically produced in the sense of a Deweyen notion of Òa mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.Ó They are more credible due to more stakeholder involvement and expanded dialogue. This involvement and dialogue produces more data which can be used for more constructive decision making.

Certain disadvantages should be taken into consideration when using this model. For instance, approaches, other than traditional evaluation, are unknown and thereby suspect. The values of inclusive evaluations can be threatening to some stakeholders such as those with power. Value commitments are not consonant. In addition, there may be considerable stakeholder disengagement and apathy. Nevertheless, these disadvantages also demonstrate the need for inclusive evaluations.

Another point involves the issue of advocacy. Evaluators should avoid advocacy and strive for balance by presenting all evidence and including all stakeholder concerns. When the evaluator is responsible for all stakeholder concerns equally, balance is not a issue. It becomes an issue when the evaluator is more responsible to and for a stakeholder groupÕs concerns in comparison to other stakeholder groups.

The inclusion of multiple stakeholders is a critical step in changing the balance of power and making explicit any unequal and prejudicial relationships within a program. Likewise, an evaluator must meet the challenge of finding or locating the stakeholder groups, and convincing them of the benefits to participating in the evaluation. In this way, the evaluator can rebalance power by providing complete representation.

Balch, George I. Mertens, Donna M. (1999, Spr-Sum). Focus Group Design and Group Dynamics: Lessons from Deaf and Hard of Hearing Participants. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 265-277.

Mertens, Donna M. (1999, Win). Inclusive Evaluation: Implications of Transformative Theory for Evaluation. Presidential Address. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 1-14.

Ryan, Katherine. Greene, Jennifer. Lincoln, Yvonna. Mathison, Sandra. Mertens, Donna M. (1998, Win). Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Evaluation Approaches in Evaluation Practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 101-122.