PERSONAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION SERIES
A GLANCE ABOUT EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION
Working document
Judicael ELIDJE
________________________________
Background: from participatory evaluation to empowerment evaluation
Evaluation[1] is a time-bound exercise that attempts to assess
systematically and objectively the relevance, performance and success, or the
lack thereof, of ongoing and completed programmes or projects. Most often, evaluation
is undertaken selectively to answer specific questions in order to guide
decision-makers and/or programme managers. It also aims at providing
appropriate information on whether underlying theories and assumptions used in
programme development were valid as well as what worked and what did not work
and the reasons. Evaluation commonly aims to determine the relevance, validity
of design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of a programme.
Several types of
evaluations exercises exist today. Among them participatory and empowerment
evaluations are currently used to identify and support changes in an identified
community. They both include key elements which are the involvement and the participation of all stakeholders in the
evaluation process starting from the design to the implementation of the evaluation.
Overview of participatory evaluation
The participatory
evaluation is an evaluation method in which representatives of agencies and
stakeholders (providers, partners,
beneficiaries, and any other interested parties) work together in all phases of the evaluation: planning and design; gathering and analyzing the
data; identifying the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations;
disseminating results; and preparing an action plan to improve program
performance.[2]
Experience has shown that participatory evaluations improve program performance
because they put a stress on listening to and learning from the interventions
beneficiaries and other key stakeholders who have a good knowledge of the
programme. Participatory evaluations allow stakeholders to gain knowledge, to
make improvements, to use the information to improve performance. Participatory
evaluations have advantages and disadvantages as shown in the table below.
PARTICIPATORY EVALUATIONS
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
·
Examine relevant issues by involving key players
in evaluation design
·
Promote participants’ learning about the program
and its performance and enhance their understanding of other stakeholders’
points of view
·
Improve participants’ evaluation skills
·
Mobilize stakeholders, enhance teamwork, and build
shared commitment to act on evaluation recommendations
·
Increase likelihood that evaluation information
will be used to improve performance
|
·
Be
viewed as less objective because pro- gram staff, customers, and other
stakeholders with possible vested interests participate
·
Be
less useful in addressing highly technical aspects
·
Require
considerable time and resources to identify and involve a wide array of stakeholders
·
Take
participating staff away from ongoing activities
·
Be
dominated and misused by some stakeholders to further their own interests
|
Though the participatory evaluation and the empowerment
evaluation have many similarities in their principles, objectives and approaches,
the empowerment evaluation seems to be more focused on community improvement
and self-determination.
Overview of empowerment evaluation
The
last two decades were the witnesses of increase use of participatory and collaborative
approaches to evaluation. These approaches were valued in evaluating complex
community-based programmes and require a strong commitment to democratic
participation, inclusion[4].
Rapid tour into years ago
According to Michael Quinn
Patton[5], the
phrase "empowerment evaluation" became prominent in the lexicon of
evaluation when Fetterman, as President of the American Evaluation Association
(AEA), made it the theme of the Association's 1993 National Conference. Then, Karen
Kirkhart, President of AEA in 1994, provided an additional platform for
discussing empowerment by choosing "Evaluation and Social Justice" as
the theme for the national conference over which she presided. The importance
of the idea of empowerment evaluation as a frontier of evaluation practice was
further recognized by the profession when David Fetterman, in 1995, and Shakeh
Kaftarian, in 1996, won the Alva and Gunnar Mydral Award for Evaluation
Practice, and Margret Dugan, in 1995, won the Guttentag Award as a promising
evaluator.
In 1996, Fetterman et al. publicized[6]
the first empowerment evaluation book untitled “Empowerment Evaluation:
Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Accountability” which provided an
introduction to the theory and practice of this approach. The book highlighted
the scope of empowerment evaluation ranging from its use in a national
educational reform movement to its endorsement by the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation’s Director of Evaluation. The book also presented examples of
empowerment evaluation in various contexts, including federal, state, and local
government; HIV prevention and related health initiatives, African American
communities, and battered women’s shelters. Several books and theories around
the empowerment evaluation have been developed since this time. However, the most
recent empowerment evaluation book is titled Empowerment Evaluation Principles
in Practice (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005) contributed to greater
conceptual clarity of empowerment evaluation. In fact, it makes more explicit
the principles of the approach and highlights the approach’s commitment to
accountability.
Definitions
According to the EuroFEM
Framework for Local and Regional Development[7],
empowerment evaluation is an approach to
assessment which invites participants to evaluate themselves and their
projects. It is based on the assumption that empowering processes, such as
attempts to gain control, obtain resources and critically understand one´s
social and physical environment, may have favourable outcomes on individual,
institutional and social level. Empowerment evaluation is designed to help
people help themselves and improve their projects by using forms of
self-evaluation and reflection in predesigned learning situations. Thus it is
close to community capacity building. This type of evaluation, which focuses on
the developmental process (formative evaluation) as well as on the results and
impact (summative evaluation) is a major tool for managing the project or
programme. Empowerment evaluation is a theory and a method which allows us to
reflect on the development of our organisations and projects. This theory fits
comfortably with the notions of the reflective practitioner and learning
organisation.
Wandersman et al’s[8]
attempt to give a definition to empowerment evaluation suggest that empowerment
evaluation is an evaluation approach that aims to increase the probability of
achieving program success by providing program stakeholders with tools for
assessing the planning, implementation, and self-evaluation of their program, and
mainstreaming evaluation as part of the planning and management of the programme/organisation.
David Fetterman[9]
rather defines empowerment evaluation as the
use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to foster improvement and
self-determination. Empowerment evaluation is designed to help people help
themselves and improve their programs using a form of self-evaluation and
reflection. The involvement of programme participants is real and includes clients
in order to allow them to conduct their own evaluations. In his vision, an external
evaluator n serves as a coach or additional facilitator depending on internal
program capabilities. The aim is to try to understand what is going on in a
situation from the participant’s own perspective as accurately and honestly as
possible and then proceed to improve
The common ground of these
definitions is the self-evaluation of programme participants as well the
self-empowerment of the different stakeholders involved in the process. Empowerment
evaluations employ both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It can be
applied to individuals, organizations, communities, and societies or cultures
even if the focus is still on programme.
Key points and tenets of the approach
Difference
between traditional evaluation and empowerment evaluation
Empowerment evaluation is
designed to address a specific evaluative need. It could in any case pretend to
be a substitute for other forms of evaluative inquiry or appraisal. The key
message in empowerment evaluation is to educate people to manage their own
affairs in areas they know better and the same time to create new roles for
evaluators to help others help themselves. In that perspective, empowerment
evaluation concepts become clearer and clarify the roles of each participant in
the process.
Table 2: Traditional Evaluation versus Empowerment
Evaluation[10]
Traditional Evaluation
|
Empowerment Evaluation
|
External
|
Internal
|
Expert
|
Coach or Critical Friend
|
Dependency
|
Self-determination and capacity building
|
Independent judgement
|
Collaboration
|
As shown in the table,
empowerment evaluation creates a shift in the paradigm of evaluation. Indeed,
empowerment evaluation gives an asset to stakeholders to improve their
relationships by promoting a collaborative attitude and self-improvement
attitude instead of defensive attitude.
Empowerment
evaluation concepts and the principles
Principles[11]
Self-determination is basic
to empowerment evaluation and will continue to be a central part of the
definition of empowerment evaluation. We also enhanced the conceptual quality
of empowerment evaluation by elaborating on other concepts as well, such as the
terms empowerment and community. Empowerment evaluation has been guided by
principles since its beginning. According to David Fetterman, there are 10 underlying
principles of empowerment evaluation as follows:
1.
Improvement: A key aim is to improve people, programs, organisations and communities and to
help them achieve results.
2.
Community ownership: Program
stakeholders, with the assistance of evaluators, take responsibility for
designing and conducting the evaluation and putting the findings to use.
3.
Inclusion: Participants,
staff from all levels of a program or organization, funders, and community
members are invited to participate.
4.
Democratic participation: Active participation by all in shared decision making
is valued; processes are based on deliberation, action and authentic
collaboration.
5.
Social justice: High
value placed on addressing the larger social good of practices and programs and
achieving a more equitable society. Seen as a means to help people address
inequities through capacity building.
6.
Community knowledge: Community-based
knowledge, information and experience is respected and used to make decisions,
understand the local context and interpret results.
7.
Evidence-based strategies: Value placed on
providing empirical justifications for action and drawing on other
evidence-based strategies that have worked. However, they need to be adapted to
the local environment, culture and conditions.
8.
Capacity-building: Program staff
and participants learn how to conduct their own evaluations. All people and organizations
are seen as capable of conducting evaluations when provided with the
appropriate tools and conditions.
9.
Organizational learning: It helps create
a community of learners. Continually reflecting on and evaluating programs and organizations
makes groups or organizations more responsive to changes and challenges.
Evaluation results are used to guide improvement.
10.
Accountability: Individuals and
organizations are held accountable for commitments made. Funders are held
accountable concerning their expectations. A commitment is made to
results-based interventions and continuous improvement.
These principles are
primarily designed to improve practice. The principles guide every part of
empowerment evaluation, from conceptualization to implementation.
Getting to Outcomes: Ten Step towards a
results-based accountability
Apart from the principles
proposed by Fetterman, Wandersman, Imm, Chinman, & Kaftarian al. proposed
in 2000 another methodological approach to empowerment evaluation. This
approach is a set of 10 questions called Getting to Outcomes. The GTO approach
asks and helps users answer the question using relevant literature, methods, and
tools. The 10 accountability questions and types of literature to address them
are as follows:
Table 3: 10 question for accountability and adapted
literature
Accountability questions
|
Types of literature
|
1.
What are
the needs and resources in your organization, school, community, or state?
|
Needs
assessment; resource assessment
|
2.
What are
the goals, target population, and desired outcomes (objectives) for your
school/ community/state?
|
Goal setting
|
3.
How does
the intervention incorporate knowledge of science and best practices in this
area?
|
Science and best practices
|
4.
How does
the intervention fit with other programs already being offered?
|
Collaboration;
cultural competence
|
5.
What capacities do you need to
put this intervention into place with quality?
|
Capacity building
|
6.
How will
this intervention be carried out?
|
Planning
|
7.
How will
the quality of implementation be assessed?
|
Process
evaluation
|
8.
How well
did the intervention work?
|
Outcome and
impact evaluation
|
9.
How will continuous quality
improvement strategies be incorporated?
|
Total quality management;
continuous quality improvement)
|
10. If the intervention is (or components are)
successful, how will the intervention be sustained?
|
Sustainability and
institutionalization
|
This 10-step process
enhances practitioners’ planning, implementation, and evaluation skills.
Concepts: 4 steps to carry out an Empowerment
Evaluation[12]
To carry out an empowerment
evaluation, four pragmatic steps are necessarily to be undertaken. These four
steps are focused in how to help others learn to evaluate their own programs:
1)
Taking stock or determining where the
program stands, including strengths and weaknesses: Programme participants involve in the process are requested
to rate their program on a 1 to 10 scale. They have to make the rating as
accurate as possible. Program participants are also asked to document their
ratings (both the ratings of specific program components and the overall
program rating). The significance of this process, however, is not the actual
rating so much as it is the creation of a baseline from which future progress
can be measured. In addition, it sensitizes program participants to the
necessity of collecting data to support assessments or appraisals.
2)
Focusing on establishing goals or determining
where you want to go in the future with an explicit emphasis on program
improvement: Programme
participants are asked how highly they
would like to rate their program in the future. Then they are asked what goals
they want to set to warrant that future rating. These goals should be established
in conjunction with programme managers and beneficiaries to ensure relevance
from both perspectives. In addition, goals should be realistic, taking into
consideration such factors as initial conditions, motivation, resources, and
program dynamics. It is important that goals be related to the programme's
activities, talents, resources, and scope of capability.
3)
Developing strategies and helping
participants determine their own strategies to accomplish program goals and
objectives: Program
participants are also responsible for selecting and developing strategies to
accomplish program objectives. Brainstorming, critical review, and consensual
agreement are used to establish a set of strategies. Determining appropriate
strategies, in consultation with programme managers and beneficiaries, is an
essential part of the empowering process. Program participants are typically
the most knowledgeable about their own jobs, and this approach acknowledges and
uses that expertise.
4)
Helping programme participants
determine the type of evidence required to document progress credibly toward
their goals: Program
participants are asked what type of documentation is required to monitor
progress toward their goals. This is a critical step. Each form of documentation
is scrutinized for relevance to avoid devoting time to collecting information
that will not be useful or relevant. Program participants are asked to explain
how a given form of documentation is related to specific program goals. In
addition, documentation must be credible and rigorous if it is to withstand the
criticism that this evaluation is self-serving.
Developmental stages of empowerment evaluation
Training,
facilitation, advocacy, illumination, and liberation are all facets of
empowerment evaluation. They constitute an integral part of the evaluation
process and put an on program development, improvement, and lifelong learning.
a.
Training: Evaluators teach people to conduct their own
evaluations and thus become more self-sufficient. This approach desensitizes
and demystifies evaluation and ideally helps organizations internalize
evaluation principles and practices, making evaluation an integral part of
programme planning. An external evaluation is an exercise in dependency rather
than an empowering experience: Most of the time, the process ends when the
evaluator departs, and leaving participants without the knowledge or experience
to do it for themselves. Contrary, an evaluation conducted by program
participants is designed to be internalized in the system, creating the
opportunity for capacity building.
b. Facilitation: Empowerment evaluators
serve as coaches or facilitators to help others conduct a self-evaluation. It
is critical to emphasize that the staff are in charge of their effort; otherwise,
program participants initially tend to look to the empowerment evaluator as
expert, which makes them dependent on an outside agent. An empowerment
evaluation coach can also provide useful information about how to create
facilitation teams (balancing analytical and social skills), work with
resistant (but interested) units, develop refresher sessions to energize tired
units, and resolve various protocol issues. The empowerment evaluation coach must ensure that the evaluation
remains in the hands of program personnel.
c.
Advocacy: both programme managers and beneficiaries often
collaborate to establish goals, strategies for achieving those goals. They work
together to document progress and set realistic timelines. They also collect
data on their own performance and present their case for their performance
appraisal. This self-evaluation thus becomes a tool of advocacy as this tool is
easily transferable to the group or programme level.
d.
Illumination. Illumination is an eye-opening, revealing, and
enlightening experience. A new insight or understanding about roles,
structures, and programme dynamics is developed in the process of determining
worth and striving for programme improvement.
e.
Liberation. Liberation is the act of being freed or freeing
oneself from pre-existing roles and constraints. It often involves new
conceptualizations of oneself and others. Empowerment evaluation can also be
liberating. Many of the examples in this discussion demonstrate how helping
individuals take charge of their lives and find useful ways to evaluate
themselves. Thus, it liberates them from traditional expectations and roles.
They also demonstrate how empowerment evaluation enables participants to find
new opportunities, see existing resources in a new light, and redefine their identities
and future roles.
A good knowledge and
understanding of the principles, the results-based accountability questions,
the four steps 4 steps to carry out an empowerment evaluation and the developmental
stages of empowerment evaluation are key elements to be known before in undertaking
this type of evaluation. As part from these technical issues, other elements
need to be in place for empowerment evaluation to be effective and credible
such as an environment conducive to sharing successes and failures and an
honest, self-critical, trusting, and supportive atmosphere. However, the
accuracy and usefulness of self-ratings improve dramatically in this context. It
is also important to have as far possible an outside evaluator who can help
keep the effort credible, useful, and on track, providing additional rigor,
reality checks, and quality controls throughout the evaluation. With many of
these elements in place, the exercise can create a dynamic community of
transformative learning.
Case study
Empowerment Evaluation with Programs Designed to
Prevent First-Time Male Perpetration of Sexual Violence[13]
“This special issue captures several threads in the ongoing evolution
of sexual violence prevention. The articles that follow examine an empowerment
evaluation process with four promising programs dedicated to preventing
first-time male perpetration of sexual violence, as well as evaluation
findings. Both the evaluation approach and the programs examined shed light on
how sexual violence prevention can continue to be improved in the future”.
“Without the perpetrator there is no act of abuse.” Bernard Acuter,
2008
Abstract: This simple, but powerful,
observation characterizes the focus of recent efforts in the field of sexual
violence prevention. Thirty-five years after the birth of the antirape movement
of the 1970s, prevention efforts continue to evolve in new ways, including a
greater focus on the prevention of perpetration and a gradual shift from
confronting sexual violence as a political and criminal justice issue to
understanding it as a public health hazard.
The antirape movement began with an emphasis on victim services and
criminal accountability for perpetrators. Early efforts also demonstrated
great faith that raising political and public awareness about sexual assault
would mobilize communities to stop it. Although these measures continue to be
important, they clearly cannot by themselves eradicate the underlying problem perpetration.
After decades of effort, we still face unacceptable levels of sexual
violence in our homes, schools, and communities. In response, advocates,
researchers, and funding agencies have turned to a new perspective from which
to address this problem—by harnessing knowledge gained in behavioural and
health sciences. Informed by advances in prevention science, sexual violence
prevention efforts have evolved from one-time awareness-raising sessions to
ongoing programs, incorporated behaviour change strategies proven effective in
other fields, enacted policies encompassing all layers of social life, and
applied increasingly sophisticated program evaluation methods to understand—and
build on—“what works.”
This special issue captures several threads in the ongoing evolution
of sexual violence prevention. The articles that follow examine an empowerment
evaluation process with four promising programs dedicated to preventing
first-time male perpetration of sexual violence, as well as evaluation
findings. Both the evaluation approach and the programs examined shed light on
how we can continue to improve sexual violence prevention in the future.
BUILDING CAPACITY AND EVIDENCE KNOWLEDGE: CDC’s response to this gap
in prevention programming involved two strategic decisions: the focus on a
small number of established programs that aim to prevent first-time male
perpetration of sexual violence and the use of empowerment evaluation. This
twin approach offered the greatest possible benefit in building evaluation
capacity among organizations in the field while expediting the development of
an evidence base for prevention programs.
Discussion
related to the above mentioned study
David Fetterman[14]
defines empowerment evaluation as the use
of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to foster improvement and
self-determination. Empowerment evaluation is designed to help people help
themselves and improve their programmes using a form of self-evaluation and
reflection. The process absolutely requires the involvement of programme participants.
Though the special issue on
sexual violence prevention article does not mention clearly all the different
stages, principles and steps of empowerment evaluation, the study put an
emphasis on self-evaluation and self-improvement. The study also focused on
change in behaviour.
As tool for
self-empowerment, the study enhances the training of involved programme. In
fact, they developed a training approach which was made of a technical
assistance process based on the formative evaluation consultation and systems
technique (FORECAST), a development of a logic model, identification of
evaluation markers and measures, interpretation of the meaning from evaluation
data. In the same way, the programme stakeholders’ engagement as a tenet of empowerment
evaluation was tested through the FORECAST process.
n
Most thought the
methodology was valuable
n
Opportunity to share
information, experiences and ideas appreciated
n
Knowledge and understanding
of participatory program evaluation increased
Criticism against this approach
Strengths
and limitations of empowerment evaluation
As many of types of
evaluations, empowerment evaluation has both strengths and limitations in the
methodological approach. The table below gives an idea of some of them.
Table 4: Strengths and limitations of empowerment
evaluation[15]
Strengths of empowerment
evaluation
|
Limitations of empowerment
evaluation
|
·
Robust
process; demonstrated effectiveness in improving community-based programs
·
Builds
evaluation capacities and a culture of evaluation based on continuous
improvement and learning
·
Evaluation
designed and controlled by program staff, participants and stakeholders
·
Process
is participatory and inclusive
·
Methods
aim to be democratic and empowering
·
Enables
the ongoing collection of reliable, evidence-based data
·
Can
provide more open and honest assessments of a program’s strengths and
weaknesses
|
·
Evaluators
need a wide range of skills, including facilitation and training, and
knowledge of program evaluation
·
Requires
careful management of power relations and differing agendas, values and
perspectives
·
Process
requires time and resources that are not always available
·
Involvement
of volunteers can be problematic
|
Other concern[16]s
The research field of
empowerment evaluation is wide. The issues addressed are social, educational,
industrial, health care, and many other problems. The whole process needs to be
rigorous and the setting mechanisms must help to ensure that program
participants are critical, analytical, and honest.
Objectivity of self-evaluation: It is really possible to be totally objective
during your self-evaluation? This is a relevant concern that empowerment
evaluation needs to permanently answer. This question is raised because
empowerment evaluations are undertaken by taking into account the dimensions of
life, political, social, cultural, and economic contexts.
Participant or programme bias: The process of conducting an empowerment
evaluation requires the appropriate involvement of stakeholders. However, some
of them could show a low level of commitment and involvement because of
everyone personal agenda.
Positions of privilege: It is possible to have during an empowerment
evaluation among the stakeholders one dominant group. This group could have the
vision, make and changes the rules, enforce the standards, and need never
question its own position or seriously consider any other. In such a view,
differences become deficits rather than additive elements of culture. People in
positions of privilege dismiss the contributions of a multicultural world. They
create rational policies and procedures that systematically deny full
participation in their community to people who think and behave differently.
Conclusion
In essence, empowerment
evaluation is the "give someone a fish and you feed her for a day; teach
her to fish, and she will feed herself for the rest of her life" concept,
as applied to evaluation. This is ownership. Empowerment evaluation is
fundamentally a democratic process. In other words, empowerment evaluation
ensures that each voice is heard in the chorus, but when the performance begins
it is the chorus that is heard. Empowerment evaluation is about building
capacity, building community, and building a future. Teaching evaluation logic
and skills is a way of building capacity for ongoing self assessment as well as
enhancing the capacity for self-determination. Thus empowerment evaluation creates
a synergistic force in our communities to do good and pursuing a social justice
agenda.
Empowerment evaluation has
captured the imagination of many evaluators, program staff, and program participants
who are committed to achieving outcomes on important educational, health, and
human service concerns. Serious advances have been made in conceptual clarity,
methodological specificity and rigor, and documentation of outcomes. The seeds
of empowerment evaluation have been planted both in the community and the field
of evaluation and they have taken hold.
[1] Programme Manager’s Planning
Monitoring & Evaluation Toolkit, Tool Number 1: Glossary of Planning, Monitoring
& Evaluation Terms, UNFPA Division for Oversight Services, March 2004
[2]
Conducting a participatory evaluation, Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation TIPS, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996
Number 1
[3]
Conducting a
participatory evaluation, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS, USAID
Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996 Number 1
[4]
Using empowerment evaluation to improve
community-based programs, Presentation made by Dr June Lennie at
the AES lunchtime seminar,
Brisbane, 14 September 2005
[5] Toward distinguishing empowerment
evaluation and placing it in a larger context, Michael Quinn Patton
[6] Empowerment
Evaluation, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, David Fetterman and Abraham
Wandersman, 180
American Journal of Evaluation / June 2007
[7] The EuroFEM Framework for Local
and Regional Development, chapter 3: concepts and theories, page 8
[8] Using empowerment evaluation to improve community-based programs; presentation made by Dr June Lennie at the AES lunchtime seminar, Brisbane, 14 September 2005
[9] David M. Fetterman; Empowerment
Evaluation: Building Communities of Practice and a Culture of Learning,
American Journal of Community Psychology;Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2002 ,
[10]
Empowerment Evaluation:
Principles in Practice; Environmental Education Evaluation Learning Community of
East Bay Community Foundation; presentation made by Dr. David M. Fetterman at Stanford University
[11] Empowerment
Evaluation, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, David Fetterman and Abraham
Wandersman, 180 American Journal
of Evaluation / June 2007
[12] Empowerment
Evaluation: Collaboration, Action Research, and a Case Example by David
Fetterman,Stanford University
[13]
Rita
K. Noonan and Deborah Gibbs; Empowerment Evaluation With Programs Designed to Prevent First-Time
Male Perpetration of Sexual Violence; Health Promotion Practice 2009; 10; 5S; Introduction to the Special Issue
[14] David M. Fetterman; Empowerment
Evaluation: Building Communities of Practice and a Culture of Learning,
American Journal of Community Psychology;Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2002 ,
[15] Using empowerment evaluation to improve community-based programs; presentation made by Dr June Lennie at the AES lunchtime seminar, Brisbane, 14 September 2005
[16] Empowerment
Evaluation: Collaboration, Action Research, and a Case Example by David Fetterman,Stanford University
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire