Unlike "distanced" evaluation approaches, which reject stakeholder participation as evaluation team members, Collaborative Evaluation assumes that active, on-going engagement between evaluators and program staff, result in stronger evaluation designs, enhanced data collection and analysis, and results that stakeholder understand and use.
The articles use a comparative Collaborative Evaluation Framework to highlight how from a theoretical perspective, Collaborative Evaluation distinguishes itself from the other participatory evaluation approaches.
While Collaborative Evaluation is a term widely used in evaluation, its meaning varies considerably.
Collaborative Evaluation systematically invites and engages stakeholders in program evaluation planning and implementation.
Throughout this paper, we discuss many examples of good science, good evaluation, and other practical benefits of practicing collaborative evaluation.
The Collaborative Evaluation Fellows Project (CEFP) is a nationally administered model for the development of program evaluation capacity.
This article presents convincing evidence that collaborative evaluation can improve the design, implementation, and findings of the randomized control trial.
Plans are proceeding for a collaborative evaluation of SRI vis-à-vis 'best management practices' to be done by scientists at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Cornell University and Wageningen University.
Ultimately, the authors created the term pre-formative evaluation to describe the period prior to data collection and before program implementation, when collaborative evaluation can inform program improvement.
Among similar "participant-oriented" evaluation approaches (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011), Collaborative Evaluation distinguishes itself in that it uses a sliding scale for levels of collaboration.
