Dialogue on Dialogue

Tineke A. Abma, Jennifer Caroline Greene, Ove Karlsson, Katherine Ryan, Thomas A Schwandt, Guy A.M. Widdershoven

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how ‘good’ are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes ‘good’ dialogue?

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)164-180
Number of pages17
JournalEvaluation
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2001

Fingerprint

dialogue
evaluation
civil society
public sector
Values
conversation
commitment
Group

Keywords

  • cautions
  • conceptualization of dialogue
  • issues of concern
  • participants in dialogue
  • relevance of dialogue
  • role of the evaluator

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Abma, T. A., Greene, J. C., Karlsson, O., Ryan, K., Schwandt, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2001). Dialogue on Dialogue. Evaluation, 7(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638900100700202

Dialogue on Dialogue. / Abma, Tineke A.; Greene, Jennifer Caroline; Karlsson, Ove; Ryan, Katherine; Schwandt, Thomas A; Widdershoven, Guy A.M.

In: Evaluation, Vol. 7, No. 2, 01.04.2001, p. 164-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abma, TA, Greene, JC, Karlsson, O, Ryan, K, Schwandt, TA & Widdershoven, GAM 2001, 'Dialogue on Dialogue', Evaluation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638900100700202
Abma TA, Greene JC, Karlsson O, Ryan K, Schwandt TA, Widdershoven GAM. Dialogue on Dialogue. Evaluation. 2001 Apr 1;7(2):164-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638900100700202
Abma, Tineke A. ; Greene, Jennifer Caroline ; Karlsson, Ove ; Ryan, Katherine ; Schwandt, Thomas A ; Widdershoven, Guy A.M. / Dialogue on Dialogue. In: Evaluation. 2001 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 164-180.
@article{b427e15073b243c9a69df81fc4547cd6,
title = "Dialogue on Dialogue",
abstract = "The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how ‘good’ are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes ‘good’ dialogue?",
keywords = "cautions, conceptualization of dialogue, issues of concern, participants in dialogue, relevance of dialogue, role of the evaluator",
author = "Abma, {Tineke A.} and Greene, {Jennifer Caroline} and Ove Karlsson and Katherine Ryan and Schwandt, {Thomas A} and Widdershoven, {Guy A.M.}",
year = "2001",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/135638900100700202",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "164--180",
journal = "Evaluation",
issn = "1356-3890",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dialogue on Dialogue

AU - Abma, Tineke A.

AU - Greene, Jennifer Caroline

AU - Karlsson, Ove

AU - Ryan, Katherine

AU - Schwandt, Thomas A

AU - Widdershoven, Guy A.M.

PY - 2001/4/1

Y1 - 2001/4/1

N2 - The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how ‘good’ are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes ‘good’ dialogue?

AB - The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how ‘good’ are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes ‘good’ dialogue?

KW - cautions

KW - conceptualization of dialogue

KW - issues of concern

KW - participants in dialogue

KW - relevance of dialogue

KW - role of the evaluator

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0347483647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0347483647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/135638900100700202

DO - 10.1177/135638900100700202

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0347483647

VL - 7

SP - 164

EP - 180

JO - Evaluation

JF - Evaluation

SN - 1356-3890

IS - 2

ER -