296Robin Lin Miller, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, 134A Psychology Building, EastLansing, MI 48824; e-mail: [email protected]’ Note: We are grateful to Maria Teresa Valenti and Mei Chao for their research assistance and to TinaChristie, Michael Hendricks, Miles McNall, Michael Patton, Michael Scriven, Nick Smith, and three anonymousreviewers for their very helpful comments on prior versions of this article.American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 27 No. 3, September 2006 296-319DOI: 10.1177/1098214006291015© 2006 American Evaluation AssociationArticlesArticles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation.Articles may focus on evaluation methods, theory, practice, or findings. In allcases, implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified.Examples of contributions include, but are not limited to, reviews of new devel-opments in evaluation, descriptions of a current evaluation study, critical reviewsof some area of evaluation practice, and presentations of important new tech-niques. Manuscripts should follow APA format for references and style. Lengthper se is not a criterion in evaluating submissions.Taking Stock of Empowerment EvaluationAn Empirical ReviewRobin Lin MillerRebecca CampbellMichigan State UniversityAbstract: Empowerment evaluation entered the evaluation lexicon in 1993. Since that time, ithas attracted many adherents, as well as vocal detractors. A prominent issue in the debates onempowerment evaluation concerns the extent to which empowerment evaluation can be readilydistinguished from other approaches to evaluation that share with it an emphasis on participatoryand collaborative processes, capacity development, and evaluation use. A second issue concernsthe extent to which empowerment evaluation actually leads to empowered outcomes for thosewho have participated in the evaluation process and those who are the intended beneficiaries ofthe social programs that were the objects of evaluation. The authors systematically examined 47case examples of empowerment evaluation published from 1994 through June 2005. The resultssuggest wide variation among practitioners in adherence to empowerment evaluation principlesand weak emphasis on the attainment of empowered outcomes for program beneficiaries.Implications for theory and practice are discussed.Keywords: empowerment evaluation; research review; participatory evaluationDeveloping cumulative knowledge in evaluation and advancing evaluation theory requiressystematic evidence on evaluation practice (Shadish, Cook, & Leviton, 1991; N. L. Smith,1993). Worthen (2001), in his commentary on the future of evaluation, pessimistically (and wehope inaccurately) predicted that evaluation in 2010 would continue to be guided by common © 2006 American Evaluation Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on July 14, 2008 http://aje.sagepub.comDownloaded fromMiller, Campbell / Empowerment Evaluation 297wisdom and opinion rather than by empirically derived knowledge. The current article wasmotivated by our desire to contribute to empirical knowledge on evaluation practice and byour belief in the value of understanding how theoretical prescriptions and real-world practicesdo or do not align for refining evaluation theory. In this article, we seek to strengthen theempirical evidence base on evaluation by presenting the results of an empirical case reviewof empowerment evaluation practice. We selected empowerment evaluation practice for studybecause we believe that by submitting its practice to empirical scrutiny, we might clarifysome of the key points of disagreement in the empowerment evaluation debates.Overview of Empowerment EvaluationEmpowerment evaluation entered the evaluation lexicon when, in 1993, then president ofthe American Evaluation Association David M. Fetterman made it his presidential theme. Inhis published presidential address, Fetterman (1994a) drew on diverse influences, includingwork in community psychology (Rappaport, 1987; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988) andaction anthropology (Tax, 1958), to craft a vision of the evaluator as an agent of socialchange. In his address and in subsequent work (cf. Fetterman, 1994a, 1999, 2001a, 2001b,2002; Fetterman, Kaftarian, & Wandersman, 1996; Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005), Fettermanand colleagues have articulated a form of evaluation practice in which evaluators bring thevoice of disempowered citizens to those who have power and facilitate citizens’ control overtheir own affairs. In describing empowerment evaluation as a new form of evaluation practice,Fetterman (1994a) argued that evaluation should serve as a tool for self-sufficiency andself-determination.Throughout their theoretical writings on empowerment evaluation, Fetterman and his col-leagues have framed it as a process that facilitates the development of perceived and actualcontrol over the fate of a community of people joined by their relationship to a socialprogram. Mirroring the distinctions made by Schulz, Israel, Zimmerman, and Checkoway(1995) and Zimmerman (2000) between the mechanisms of empowerment and the state ofbeing empowered and between individual and organizational empowerment, Fetterman(1994a) noted that empowerment evaluation ought to enact empowering processes in the con-duct of evaluation and to facilitate empowered outcomes.At the level of an individual, psychologically empowering processes are those that provideopportunities for people to work with others, learn decision-making skills, and manageresources (Schulz et al., 1995; Zimmerman, 2000). Empowering processes as such are typi-cal of many participatory and collaborative approaches to research and evaluation in whichprogram stakeholders work with evaluators to design and conduct research or an evaluationproject (Patton, 1997b; Worthington, 1999).At an organizational level, empowering processes are those in which responsibility andleadership are shared and opportunities to participate in decision making are made available(Schulz et al., 1995; Zimmerman, 2000). Evaluation practices considered to be empoweringto organizations include the formation of evaluation teams within organizations or programs,as well as adherence to democratic processes in which organization members come togetherto discuss the meaning of evaluation findings and their action implications.Empowered outcomes are evidenced by whether