{"id":6958,"date":"2019-07-09T18:41:20","date_gmt":"2019-07-09T18:41:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/infed.org\/mobi\/?p=6958"},"modified":"2025-08-13T16:35:53","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T15:35:53","slug":"bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>There are many approaches to evaluation as well as many contexts in which evaluation has been carried out.\u00a0 This paper by Margo Menconi describes possible issues in carrying out evaluations in activist settings; describes the evaluation efforts of one activist group; and then suggests possible relevant evaluation approaches that might be helpful to activist groups.<\/h2>\n<h6><strong>contents:<\/strong> introduction \u00b7 mobilization for global justice \u00b7 relevant evaluation approaches \u00b7 evaluation activities \u00b7 summary \u00b7 bibliography \u00b7 how to cite this article<\/h6>\n<p>[My background is in adult education and this paper is a take off from my grounded theory research project on social movement learning, which incorporates a lot of data from the April 2000 anti-IMF\/World Bank protests in Washington, DC.\u00a0 The coalition umbrella group that organized much of what happened that week called itself the Mobilization for Global Justice.\u00a0 The week of events were called \u201ca16\u201d.]<\/p>\n<p>In writing about evaluation in the social work setting, Gabor, Uenray, &amp; Grinnell (1998) identify two myths about evaluation that keep groups from carrying out evaluations.\u00a0 The first myth is philosophical:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Some of us maintain that the evaluation of social work services \u2013 or the evaluation of anything for that matter \u2013 is impossible, never really \u201cobjective,\u201d politically incorrect, meaningless, and culture-biased. (p. 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This statement seems applicable to the activist setting.\u00a0 Activists tend to take ideology and philosophical (especially political philosophy) issues seriously.\u00a0 Thus, this is an issue that would need to be addressed in the activist context.<\/p>\n<p>One possible way to address this issue is by assuring that the evaluation approach fits the group\u2019s philosophy.\u00a0 Doing so should enhance the likelihood of the evaluation effort being accepted, carried out, and bearing impact on the group.\u00a0 This is similar to Vella, Berardinelli, and Burrow\u2019s third characteristic of an effective evaluation (1998, p. 12), that says that evaluation should match the organizational philosophy.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps related to the philosophy issue as a matter of organizational culture, is the issue of formalization and professionalization.\u00a0 Many activist groups tend to be informal and less professional in structure and operations.\u00a0 This is not all bad, in fact, and if evaluation is introduced in such a setting, one might want to consider the pros and cons of possible impacts on the group in this regard.\u00a0 Systematic data collection and record keeping might tend to have a formalizing influence.<\/p>\n<p>The second myth that these authors mention is that to many \u201cthe quality improvement process via evaluations is a horrific event whose consequences should be feared.\u201d (Gabor, Uenray, &amp; Grinnell, 1998, p. 6)\u00a0 While the authors acknowledge that some of the fears associated with evaluations are not completely unfounded, others have less basis in reality.\u00a0 Those that do have some basis, often do so because of the misuse of evaluation.\u00a0 One example of this is the use of evaluation for individual performance evaluation.\u00a0 While in the activist setting this might not necessarily always mean formal personal evaluation, it might mean putting an individual in a bad light.\u00a0 Many authors evaluators believe that this is an inappropriate use of evaluation, unless, of course, the evaluation is specifically a performance review.\u00a0 But to use a program evaluation, for example, for performance review purposes is inappropriate.\u00a0 This fear should be alleviated by taking precautions in advance against the use of evaluation findings for personal review purposes.<\/p>\n<p>The issue of inclusion is also a potential problem area for carrying out evaluation in activist settings.\u00a0 Activists might want to exclude certain relevant stakeholders for lack of trust or because of internal power issues.\u00a0 The adversarial stance taken by many activist groups might seem to preclude inclusiveness in evaluation efforts.\u00a0 While this is understandable, as many stakeholders as reasonably possible should preferably be included in evaluation efforts.\u00a0 Similarly, in-group power wielding is often of an informal nature, which can be more slippery and political than formal power.\u00a0 This informal nature of power in activist groups might make inclusion in evaluations even within activist ranks difficult as well.\u00a0 A lack of inclusiveness in the evaluation effort could result in a weak effort and relatively unhelpful evaluation results, including biased results, and missing important information and issues.\u00a0 If tight control is maintained over the range of participants in an evaluation, the results will be skewed.<\/p>\n<p>Another issue is the fact that many activist groups are staffed only or mostly by volunteers.\u00a0 While many such activists are quite skilled, even otherwise professional activists, they frequently work within significant time constraints and they are also often not trained in evaluation specifically.\u00a0 As volunteers, they may also be threatened by the thought of an evaluation, or it just might not fit into their motivation for joining the group, and they might consequently be inclined to use exit from the group.\u00a0 Usually, one thinks of performing an evaluation in a setting with at least a core paid staff, where exit where might be somewhat less likely.\u00a0 On the other hand, one possible advantage in the activist setting is that many activists are highly committed to the cause and as such might be able to see evaluation as a way to improve the group\u2019s effectiveness in reaching their activist goals, for example.\u00a0 There would need to be some work with this, in order for the volunteer activists to see the benefit of the evaluation effort and want to participate in it.<\/p>\n<p>While not unique to activist settings, the lack of financial resources, time, and skills to carry out an evaluation might also be a barrier to implementing an evaluation.\u00a0 In most cases, activist groups will not be able to afford to hire an external evaluator, although there may be some funding available for this as well.\u00a0 Therefore, training will probably be needed for the activists to carry out much of their own evaluation.\u00a0 How much time to put into the evaluation effort will also need to be carefully considered, especially in balance with other activities by the group.<\/p>\n<p>Another issue is the goal of the evaluation.\u00a0 Evaluations can perform many functions, some of which are more appropriate than others.\u00a0 Some of the potentially relevant functions of evaluation in the activist setting might include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>For making program, organizational and other relevant improvements<\/li>\n<li>As a decision-making tool<\/li>\n<li>For reporting to funders and other stakeholders<\/li>\n<li>For external and internal accountability<\/li>\n<li>For organizational learning<\/li>\n<li>For organizational re-organization, mission and vision clarification<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Activists might have limited understandings of what evaluation is all about and should consider the range of potential uses of evaluation.\u00a0 This might mean prioritizing the purpose(s) most relevant to the group and also considering how the group can act consistently with the demands they place on government and business groups, such as accountability and transparency.<\/p>\n<p>In evaluation, there is also generally considered to be some standard or criteria for judging the acceptability of the evaluation process and findings.\u00a0 There are many such criteria, and different approaches to evaluation often come with their own criteria as well.\u00a0 These standards should be decided on by the group.\u00a0 There are many reasons for being concerned about this issue.\u00a0 For example, if outside \u201cstakeholders\u201d are expected to accept the findings, the results should be considered credible by them.\u00a0 Also, power politics internal to the group might be such that different groups and individuals need to be satisfied that the processes and results are fair and balanced.\u00a0 Four professional standards that Gabor, Uenray, and Grinnell (1998) suggest would be appropriate for activist groups.\u00a0 They suggest that a solid evaluation should be characterized by utility, feasibility, fairness, and accuracy (pp. 329-331).<\/p>\n<p>This being said, the Mobilization for Global Justice did carry out evaluation functions in the spring and summer of 2000.\u00a0 We will now turn to them to see what they did in fact do in this regard.<\/p>\n<h4>The Mobilization for Global Justice<\/h4>\n<p>According to my data, the Mobilization for Global Justice used four primary self-conscious methods for program evaluation.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>After workshops they sometimes had informal evaluations<\/p>\n<p>After the week was over working groups met individually and then collectively to evaluate their efforts<\/p>\n<p>After the week was over individual activist-writers produced evaluations of the week.<\/p>\n<p>Much of the on-going research and writing by activists and activist groups might be considered a kind of evaluative policy analysis<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Following individual training workshops and general meetings, facilitator-trainers sometimes ended with a request for some kind of verbal or gesture evaluation from the group.\u00a0 The proposed agenda for the first general planning meeting included an evaluation of the meeting at the end.\u00a0 However, that was the only case in my data where the agenda included such, and end-of-meeting evaluation results were never included in any of the minutes I have copies of (cp., doc. 47).\u00a0 Similarly, at the end of the first nonviolence training sponsored by Mobilization for Global Justice in Washington, DC there was an evaluation, which included \u201cgood stuff\u201d and \u201cstuff to work on\u201d.\u00a0 These were listed in the notes from the training (doc. 319).<\/p>\n<p>Judging by this, it seems that there was only a very limited use of evaluation in meetings and trainings, and it seldom appeared in the notes or minutes from the meeting when it was included.\u00a0 However, there was also one instance where the notetaker included her own evaluative comments at the end of the minutes on how the meeting went (doc 314).\u00a0 Data collection in these efforts was simple and informal, and little effort was apparently made to record or consider the use of the evaluation.\u00a0 Since the evaluation approaches tended to be mostly self-affirming anyway, it would probably have taken a major glaring issue to result in organizational learning or utilization of the results.<\/p>\n<p>After the week was over each working group was asked to meet in advance of a general meeting to evaluate the activities of their working group.\u00a0 Each group was to use a simple pre-set discussion guideline to assist them in their discussions.\u00a0 These guiding questions were as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Specific things that worked well<\/p>\n<p>Specific things that needed work\/alteration<\/p>\n<p>Future work your group has identified to do\/will do (doc. 862)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Some groups or individuals provided written reports of their discussions or evaluations (docs. 863, 893 &amp; 941).\u00a0 These varied from being essay-like to being simple lists of evaluative comments made at the working group meeting.\u00a0 At least two of these reports in my data contain suggestions for similar future efforts, based on what was learned from a16.<\/p>\n<p>Since not all groups were able to meet before the general meeting, time was provided at the beginning of the general meeting for working groups to meet and evaluate their efforts, following which they then shared their \u201cfindings\u201d with the larger group.\u00a0 This was followed up with a discussion at the meeting evaluating Mobilization for Global Justice as a whole.\u00a0 These results were posted in the meeting minutes on the list serve (doc. 963), but they were much briefer than the individual working group reports posted to the list.<\/p>\n<p>One thing about these working group and post-a16 evaluation efforts that might be worth noting at this point, is that while the word \u201cevaluation\u201d is used, it seems that \u201cdebrief\u201d is used much more often in connection with these efforts.\u00a0 The conference call for those having participated in lobbying during the week was especially referred to as being a debrief meeting (docs. 816, 857); but this term was also used frequently in reference to the working group evaluation efforts.<\/p>\n<p>In evaluation circles, terminology, such as evaluation, auditing and research, get discussed fairly frequently.\u00a0 Perhaps it might be helpful to also consider the implications of using \u201cdebrief\u201d instead of \u201cevaluation.\u201d\u00a0 Perhaps \u201cdebrief\u201d is actually a more accurate term to describe what the activists did in this case.\u00a0 But understanding the difference and the implications of these terms and approaches might be helpful.<\/p>\n<p>As to the implications of these post-a16 evaluation efforts, it is unclear how much impact there was on the Mobilization for Globalization, which still meets to this day.\u00a0 For example, two issues which were of great concern were diversity in the group and also outreach to the local Washington, D.C. community.\u00a0 The last meeting of the Mobilization for Global Justice that I attended, in the fall of 2002, some two years later, had seen little progress on these issues.\u00a0 Since then there has been more effort into reaching out to the local community, however.<\/p>\n<p>Accountability seems to not be an impetus for these evaluative\/debriefing efforts, and is not mentioned in my data nor do I remember it from any of the meetings I attended.<\/p>\n<p>Immediately following a16, there were also several articles published in activist and alternative media evaluating the event.\u00a0 Since the events of a16 were more than just local happenings, this form of evaluation effort tended to reach national and international audiences and have a tone reflecting concern for the larger so-called anti-globalization movement and learning from what happened in Washington, DC and improving on it for next time.\u00a0 These evaluation articles appeared in activist media such as ZMag (doc. 725, 726, 763), IndyMedia (doc. 802), Corporate Watch (doc. 809), and a weekly column \u201cFocus on the Corporate\u201d (doc. 821).\u00a0 These were a sort of expert evaluation, written by leaders in the movement.\u00a0 Since future events, after a16 occurred in rather diverse settings, from Prague (the next IMF\/World Bank meetings), to Philadelphia and Los Angeles (Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively), for example, and also consisted of somewhat different issues and thus coalitions, it is unclear how much these evaluation articles influenced later activist efforts.\u00a0 It is unclear how effective a tool this is currently for organizational\/movement learning, whether at the local, national or international levels.<\/p>\n<p>Another form of evaluation used quite extensively, and in a more developed form than the previous mentioned evaluation efforts, is activist use of policy analysis.\u00a0 The material of this nature used by the activists of Mobilization for Global Justice was produced by people in think tank and academic settings.\u00a0 Many of the Foreign Policy in Focus papers, for example, would fit this genre (docs. 151, 152, 153, 154).\u00a0 From the academic standpoint, the activists included a couple of papers by Michel Chossudovsky on Brazil and on a Marshal plan for speculators and investors (docs. 164, 166).\u00a0 Chossudovsky is an economics professor at the University of Ottawa.\u00a0 Most of the papers used by the activists would not be considered evaluative or policy analysis; most of them were focused more on just educational functions or mobilizing activists.\u00a0 However, this policy analysis function is probably the most developed form of evaluation used by the Mobilization for Global Justice.\u00a0 However, the focus in this case is not on evaluation of the movement efforts, but on evaluation of movement opponents or targets.<\/p>\n<p>In looking back over this overview, it would appear that much of the evaluation effort of the Mobilization for Global Justice was summative in nature, happening at the end of a program or event.\u00a0 It was also completely carried out internally, rather than with the aid of an external evaluator.\u00a0 These efforts would also be what we call \u201cinformal evaluation\u201d\u2019 While they were intentionally evaluative, they mostly weren\u2019t terribly well thought out in advance.\u00a0 The one exception regards the policy analysis element, which might be described as activists carrying out, in a rather professional manner, an external evaluation of government or para-governmental agencies, such as the World Bank.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Mobilization for Global Justice brought together so many leader activists from different organizations, movements and cities around the United States (for example, leaders came from Minnesota, California, Washington state, etc.), as well as from abroad, it may well be that what we see by way of evaluation practices in my data is fairly representative of activist circles at least in the United States, if not other countries.<\/p>\n<h4>Relevant evaluation approaches<\/h4>\n<p>So where do we go from here?\u00a0 While each activist group and situation warrants deciding for themselves how to approach evaluation, there are a few models and approaches in the evaluation literature that seem like they might be reasonable fits, or at least reasonably be able to inform decisions on how to approach evaluation in activist settings.<\/p>\n<h5>Feminist evaluation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Hood and Cassaro (2002, p. 28), \u201cFeminism as a paradigm for social inquiry falls under the genre of critical theory.\u00a0 It utilizes poststructuralist notions that challenge assumptions of universal concepts and essential categories and acknowledges that \u201creality\u201d is socially constructed.\u201d While the authors of this special volume of New Directions for Evaluation on feminist evaluation underscore the fact that feminist evaluators use a variety of methods, there are several underlying concepts that unite them.\u00a0 Sielbeck-Bowen et al. (2002) identify six such unifying principles or ideas:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Feminist evaluation has as a central focus the gender inequities that lead to social injustice. Discrimination or inequality based on gender is systemic and structural.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation is a political activity\u2026<\/p>\n<p>Knowledge is a powerful resource that serves an explicit or implicit purpose\u2026<\/p>\n<p>Knowledge and values are culturally, socially, and temporally contingent\u2026<\/p>\n<p>There are multiple ways of knowing; some ways are privileged over others.\u201d (pp. 3-4)<\/p>\n<p>Feminist evaluation, with its roots in postmodernism, critical theory and respect for diversity, seems like it might be a reasonable fit for many activist situations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h5>Empowerment evaluation<\/h5>\n<p>Empowerment evaluation focuses on capacity building of the program participants so that they can carry out their own program evaluation.\u00a0 According to David Fetterman, the originator of this approach (1997, p. 382), \u201cEmpowerment evaluation has an unambiguous value orientation \u2013 it is designed to help people help themselves and improve their programs using a form of self-evaluation and reflection.\u201d\u00a0 It is also a group, rather than individual, pursuit.\u00a0 Like feminist evaluation above, this approach also recognized multiple worldviews, while at the same time being committed to truth and honesty, which leads to the use of checks and balances to assure that these principles are adhered to in the evaluation.\u00a0 Empowerment evaluation has its roots in community psychology and action anthropology (Fetterman, 2000).<\/p>\n<p>There are four steps to empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, 2000, p. 396):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201ctaking stock or determining where you stand as a program including where you want to go in the future with an explicit emphasis on program improvement\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cfocusing on establishing goals, determining where you want to go in the future with an explicit emphasis on program improvement\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cdeveloping strategies and helping participants determine their own strategies to accomplish program goals and objectives\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201chelping program participants determine the type of evidence required to document progress credibly toward their goals.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>While empowerment evaluation does allow for a consultative role for the external evaluator, the focus on self-evaluation and the development of a \u201cdynamic community of transformative learning\u201d (Fetterman, 1997, p. 385), might be well-received in activist circles.<\/p>\n<h5>Co-evaluation<\/h5>\n<p>Sandra Gray and associates developed coevaluation especially for use in the nonprofit world.\u00a0 In this perspective, evaluation is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process.\u00a0 According to Gray, \u201cCoevaluation, is the means by which an organization continuously learns how to be more effectives.\u00a0 It provides a means of organizational learning, a way for the organization to assess its progress and change in ways that lead to greater achievement of its mission in the context of its vision.\u201d (1998, p. 4).<\/p>\n<p>Coevaluation consists of three steps:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201casking good questions\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cgathering and reviewing information\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201csharing the information to foster good decision making\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In this view, coevaluation \u201cis the responsibility of everyone in the organization\u201d, \u201caddresses the total system of the organization\u201d, and \u201cinvites collaborative relationships\u201d (Gray, 1998, p. 5).\u00a0 \u201cTotal system\u201d and \u201crelationships\u201d include relevant external-to-the-organization elements, people and groups as well as internal ones.\u00a0 Coevaluation is a process that is incorporated into the daily routine of the organization.<\/p>\n<p>Coevaluation, as being a continuous (rather than one-time) evaluation, would probably be well accepted in activist circles.\u00a0 However, there may be resistance to including external groups and certain systems aspects in the evaluation.<\/p>\n<h5>The evaluation of popular education<\/h5>\n<p>Jane Vella et al\u2019s approach to evaluation of popular education programs is specific to educational programs.\u00a0 But it could easily be adapted to other programs, especially ones with philosophies compatible with popular education.\u00a0 Many activist groups use popular education methods in at least some of their educational efforts.<\/p>\n<p>While the authors do not explicitly say so, their approach seems to take off from the logic model.\u00a0 This approach to evaluation was based on the beliefs that effective evaluation\u2026<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cmust be objective\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cshould identify the important elements of an educational program\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cshould match the organizational philosophy\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cmeasures should be identifiable and accessible\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cshould focus on both the outcomes and the process\u201d (Vella et al, 1998, p. 12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In this view, evaluation begins with the initial program planning stage, and not just in the middle of a program or at the end of it.\u00a0 However, while evaluation in this perspective is all-pervasive, it appears to be mostly focused on the program objectives.<\/p>\n<p>Similar to the logic model, the chart used for this evaluation approach consists of six columns, which refer specifically to the adult education process and are as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Skills Knowledge Attitudes (SKAs), \u201cContent, and Achievement-Based Objectives\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cEducational Process Elements: Learning Tasks and Materials\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAnticipated Changes *Learning * Transfer * Impact\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cEvidence of Change * Content * Process * Qualitative * Quantitative\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cDocumentation of Evidence\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAnalysis of Evidence\u201d (Vella et al, 1998, p. 60)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>These columns would probably have to be adapted to fit the not educative elements of activist efforts.\u00a0 However, when it comes down to it, much of what activists do is educative, if not only popular education in form.<\/p>\n<p>Each of these approaches to evaluation potentially have something to offer in the activist context.\u00a0 But no matter which is chosen, or another approach, or some combination, evaluation should be considered seriously as a means of program and organizational improvement and as a tool for accountability.\u00a0 Since activists generally have a great zeal for the issues they get involved in; strengthening the effectiveness of their efforts seems like it would be a worthwhile endeavor.\u00a0 Likewise, as activists so often demand accountability and transparency of business and government, it would be consistent with their values to use evaluation as a tool for accountability for their own activities, as well.<\/p>\n<h4>Evaluation activities<\/h4>\n<p>At this point, it might be helpful to discuss briefly specific evaluation activities in the activist context.\u00a0 Reference will be made to the Mobilization for Global Justice case by way of example.<\/p>\n<h5>Planning and management<\/h5>\n<p>The group Mobilization for Global Justice was just starting up during the time I collected the bulk of my data on them.\u00a0 As such, they were going through early stages of organizational development.\u00a0 While, key leadership in the organization consisted mainly of professional activists from various interested organizations (both local and otherwise), the fact that the group did not have a ready set infrastructure affected its planning and management.\u00a0 The fact that they took much of their format and procedures from the Seattle anti-WTO protest efforts, however, did expedite organizational development considerably.\u00a0 Nonetheless, another throwback on following in Seattle\u2019s heels, was the fact that activists planning a16 had a tough act to follow:\u00a0 Seattle was considered a smashing success.\u00a0 Largely because of this, there was some fear of deviating from the program or organizational format established in Seattle.\u00a0 Tactical planning is an example of this hesitancy, in which some people thought that you could never replicate an earlier event, but in the end the same strategies were used as in Seattle.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, evaluation would have had to be sensitive to the organizational stage of development.\u00a0 Perhaps someone in the temporary office that was eventually set up or a separate working group could have oversaw evaluation efforts.\u00a0 As mentioned earlier, however, finding people with sufficient expertise and also with time to take this on, would have been a challenge.\u00a0 Also, if this were something that wasn\u2019t normally taken up in activist circles, one might have had to use great people and communication skills to be accepted by the leadership especially.<\/p>\n<h5>Record keeping<\/h5>\n<p>Once the Mobilization for Global Justice office was set up, there was an effort to centralize record keeping.\u00a0 A request was made for all working groups, for example, to submit relevant documents and information to the new office.\u00a0 Similarly, certain working groups also asked for information from other working groups, such as the Media Working Group asking for information regarding media contacts made by other working groups.\u00a0 Thus, it seems that there was already an understanding that recordkeeping and some level of centralization of the same was important and acted on.\u00a0 This function of evaluation would probably have met with little resistance, unless perhaps it tested the capacities of time and people available.<\/p>\n<h5>Data collection<\/h5>\n<p>Judging by the data I have available from early functioning of the Mobilization for Global Justice, data collection in their case would probably have been spotty, inconsistent and irregular unless there was careful oversight and\/or training of key individuals.\u00a0 For example, meeting minutes, which involved collecting data by way of notetaking at planning meetings, were not always prepared and when they were they were inconsistent in quality and format, and their level of access or availability if prepared also varied.\u00a0 This is not to say that uniformity is always best in such activist settings, but for the purposes evaluation, such data collection would need to be such that it was useful and helpful in coming to evaluative conclusions.<\/p>\n<h5>Reporting<\/h5>\n<p>Activist settings, it seems to me, allow for a great variety of reporting methods and styles.\u00a0 For example, panel discussions, role plays and drama, drawings and other forms or visual art, poetry and song, web sites and blogs, museum-like displays, as well as the traditional written report, are all distinct possibilities that might be effective.\u00a0 Reporting has the potential of being a very exciting part of the evaluation process in activist settings.<\/p>\n<h4>Summary<\/h4>\n<p>The possibilities for program evaluation administration and implementation are seemingly as diverse as activist groups themselves.\u00a0 Hopefully, with a little foresight and desire to carry out evaluative functions for appropriate ends, evaluation can serve as a useful tool to help activist groups better reach their goals and to assist them in being and acting consistent with their values and interest.<\/p>\n<h4>Bibliography<\/h4>\n<p>Fetterman, D. M. (1997).\u00a0 Empowerment evaluation and accreditation in higher education.\u00a0 In E. Chelimsky &amp; W. R. Shadish (Eds.).\u00a0 <em>Evaluation for the 21<sup>st<\/sup> Century: A Handbook<\/em>, pp. 381-395.\u00a0 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n<p>Fetterman, D. M. (2000).\u00a0 Steps of empowerment evaluation: from California to Cape Town.\u00a0 In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. E. Madaus, &amp; T. Kallaghan. (Eds.).\u00a0 <em>Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation<\/em>, pp. 395-408.\u00a0 Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.<\/p>\n<p>Gabor, P. A., Uenray, Y. A., &amp; Grinnell, Jr., R. M. (1998).\u00a0 Evaluation for Social Workers: A Quality Improvement Approach for the Social Services, rev. ed.\u00a0 Boston: Allyn &amp; Bacon.<\/p>\n<p>Gray, S. T. (1998).\u00a0 <em>Evaluation with Power<\/em>.\u00a0 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n<p>Hood, D. W., &amp; Cassaro, D. A. (2002).\u00a0 Feminist evaluation and the inclusion of difference.\u00a0 In D. Seigart &amp; S. Brisolara (Eds.).\u00a0 <em> Feminist Evaluation Explorations and Experiences<\/em>, pp. 27-40.\u00a0 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n<p>Seigart, D., &amp; Brisolara, S. (Eds.) (2002). <em>Feminist Evaluation Explorations and Experiences <\/em>(New Directions for Evaluation, No. 96).\u00a0 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n<p>Sielbeck-Bowen, K. A., Brisolara, S., Seigart, D., Tischler, C., &amp; Whitmore, E. (2002).\u00a0 Exploring feminist evaluation: the ground from which we rise.\u00a0 .\u00a0 In D. Seigart &amp; S. Brisolara (Eds.).\u00a0 <em>Feminist Evaluation Explorations and Experiences<\/em>, pp. 3-8.\u00a0 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n<p>Vella, J., Berardinelli, P., &amp; Burrow, J. (1998).\u00a0 How Do They Know They Know\u00a0?\u00a0 Evaluating Adult Learning.\u00a0 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Acknowledgement<\/strong>: Picture &#8211; capitalism isn&#8217;t working &#8211; is by Tony Hall (Flickr: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/anotherphotograph\/3405119691\/\"> http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/anotherphotograph\/3405119691\/<\/a>). Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence (Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic).<\/p>\n<p><strong>How to cite this article: <\/strong> Menconi, M. (2003) &#8216;Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice&#8217;, <em> The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, <\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.infed.org\/evaluation\/evaluation_globalization.htm\">www.infed.org\/evaluation\/evaluation_globalization.htm<\/a>. [Paper originally presented to The Society for the Study of Social Problems August 2003] Last update: July 08, 2014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There are many approaches to evaluation as well as many contexts in which evaluation has been carried out.\u00a0 This paper by Margo Menconi describes possible issues in carrying out evaluations in activist settings; describes the evaluation efforts of one activist group; and then suggests possible relevant evaluation approaches that might be helpful to activist groups. &#8230; <a title=\"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29938,"parent":0,"menu_order":144,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"no","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":"","_wp_rev_ctl_limit":""},"class_list":["post-6958","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"There are many approaches to evaluation as well as many contexts in which evaluation has been carried out.\u00a0 This paper by Margo Menconi describes possible issues in carrying out evaluations in activist settings; describes the evaluation efforts of one activist group; and then suggests possible relevant evaluation approaches that might be helpful to activist groups. ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"infed.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-13T15:35:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"704\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-07-09T18:41:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-13T15:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":704,\"caption\":\"Capitalism Isn't Working Another World Is Possible (5760)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/\",\"name\":\"infed.org\",\"description\":\"exploring education, pedagogy and community action\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/infed.org\\\/dir\\\/welcome\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org","og_description":"There are many approaches to evaluation as well as many contexts in which evaluation has been carried out.\u00a0 This paper by Margo Menconi describes possible issues in carrying out evaluations in activist settings; describes the evaluation efforts of one activist group; and then suggests possible relevant evaluation approaches that might be helpful to activist groups. ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/","og_site_name":"infed.org","article_modified_time":"2025-08-13T15:35:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":704,"url":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/","url":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/","name":"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice - infed.org","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg","datePublished":"2019-07-09T18:41:20+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-13T15:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/capitalism_isnt_working_tony_hall_cc_1200.jpg","width":1200,"height":704,"caption":"Capitalism Isn't Working Another World Is Possible (5760)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/bringing-evaluation-to-the-grassroots-insights-gleaned-from-studying-the-mobilization-for-global-justice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bringing evaluation to the grassroots: Insights gleaned from studying the mobilization for global justice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/#website","url":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/","name":"infed.org","description":"exploring education, pedagogy and community action","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6958\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/infed.org\/dir\/welcome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}