Talk:Empowerment evaluation

Request

DF: Hi - just looking for additional suggestions to improve the empowerment evaluation page and reduce or eliminate the stub classification note at the top of the page. Many thanks in advance for your ideas, patience, and good will. Profdavidf (talk) David —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

See below. By the way, the article hasn't been classified as a stub. It's clearly more than that, but it does need significant improvements which are outlined in the maintenance tag at the top of the page and in more detail here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DF: Sorry about the wrong terminology (stub). I am not sure what the box introducing the article is called - the one that says "This article has multiple issues." I would like to work to remove that box. I will work on those items to improve the piece and follow your recommendation below providing more detail about the critiques and responses in the field. I was not sure how much detail I was allowed to go into but happy to provide their views in more detail. There views have been helpful in refining the approach and clarifying issues of agreement and disagreement in the field. Thanks again for your assistance. Any additional recommendations are always welcome. Profdavidf (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC) David

Improvements needed

1. The section and subsections on Debates and controversy need a lot of work and need to be more balanced. They should be written in discursive prose and go unto much more detail. I removed the unencylopedic use of "Highlight" to label the short summaries in the First wave of comment and criticism, but in any case, the highight/summaries are way too sketchy and in places quite misleading and over-simplified. Prime example:

"Empowerment evaluation is part of a movement. It is now part of the evaluation field. (Scriven, M. (1997)."

I read Scriven's paper. Yes, he did say that in the paper's abstract, but he said much more than that and it's not an accurate summary of the gist of his paper. It contained several detailed and in places quite sharp criticism of EE. The subsection Second wave of comment and critique needs even more work. It basically simply lists a series of articles (which are not freely available online) and suggests that readers should consult them to find out what the specific critques were. What did the authors specifically say lacked "conceptual and methodological clarity" in the EE approach and why? Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DF: Hi - you are correct. It is much to sketchy and brief. Thanks again. I just spent the day expanding the first and second waves of criticism. It is much more detailed and complete. I have also added headers - response to criticism - to make it easier to read.

DF I have added the critics specific concerns so that readers do not have to consult the articles unless they want additional detail and depth. I have also clarified the response to these critiques.

Let me know if this is responsive to your concerns and anything else you suggest I do to refine and improve this piece. Best wishes.

98.207.131.61 (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Profdavidf (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC) David

Hi again. I just did another wave of editing to clean up key sections and make it flow more smoothly. Let me know what you recommend next - always appreciate your comments and insights. Best wishes. Profdavidf (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) David

Hi, I was just reviewing this page and I had a few comments and suggestions. You do not have to use these, and I believe some of them were already discussed. The article is biased towards the positive outcomes of empowerment evaluations. There are rebuttals to critiques and notes of the positive results of the evaluations, instead of acknowledging to critiques and providing examples of consequences. I did enjoy the flow of the page, and it was a lot easier to follow than most pages I have read into. I know this was mentioned before, but as a young scholar, it would be helpful to have a little more expansion on the critiques. I did find the links to the critiques helpful though in my own use of the knowledge. Thank you! SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)