Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hills, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Engaging New Social Movements

Dione Hills

The Tavistock Institute, 30 Tabernacle Street, London EC2A 4UE, England.

Organizations involved in the development of innovative social programs are coming under increasing pressure to establish structures through which the users, targets, or beneficiaries of program activities can be involved in program planning and implementation. The dynamic that this sets up between the program and its wider environment, particularly in areas in which "new social movements" are operating, can be quite challenging. This article seeks to examine these dynamics, particularly in the context of program evaluation. It is argued that an engaged evaluation approach (drawing on an action research orientation) has particular strengths in such a situation, although the limitations and challenges of such an approach are also outlined. It may, for example, require careful management in terms of the dynamics of the evaluation team. The discussion is illustrated by examples drawn from the evaluation of a European program for disabled people in which the author as member of a research team from The Tavistock Institute was involved.

Key Words: user involvement • engaged evaluation • stake holder evaluation • new social movements

Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 12, 1457-1476 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679805101203


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
R. Loveridge, P. Willman, and S. Deery
60 years of Human Relations
Human Relations, December 1, 2007; 60(12): 1873 - 1888.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Educ ResHome page
O. Parry, W. Gnich, and S. Platt
Principles in practice: reflections on a `postpositivist' approach to evaluation research
Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2001; 16(2): 215 - 226.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]