Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DIXON, J.
Right arrow Articles by SINDALL, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by DIXON, J.
Right arrow Articles by SINDALL, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Promotion International, Vol. 9, No. 4, 297-309, 1994
© Oxford University Press 1994


other

Applying logics of change to the evaluation of community development in health promotion

JANE DIXON and COLIN SINDALL

Department of Social Work, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Victoria, Australia Food and Nutrition Program, Deakin University Victoria, Australia Evaluation of community-oriented health promotion programs require that professional evaluators clearly distinguish between exogenously and endogenously defined goals and definitions of ‘success’. Acknowledging the different dynamics which underpin community-led change and externally initiated health programs and interventions is essential to this task. It will be argued that the intersection of, and boundaries around, exogenous and endogenous change can best be understood and clarified through the application of ‘logics of rationality’, adapted from social theory. Community activity is characterised by what we have called ‘lifeworld rationality’ community-based health promotion interventions are characterised by ‘formal ratonality’. In addition, we suggest that the value dimensions (‘substantive rationality’) underpinning programs and interventions may be overlooked by policy makers, program planners and professional evaluators under pressure to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Key requirements for successful and appropriate evaluation of community-based programs which are sensitive to the needs and success criteria of communities include a shared understanding by the researchers, program sponsors and community actors of the nature of the changes sought. The co-production of health promotion standards and of indicators to judge the performance of the program or intervention by all stakeholders should be preferred over the trend for establishing community-controlled process evaluations to coexist alongside expert-controlled impact evaluations. It is argued that current approaches to standard setting and indicator development to judge the processes and impacts of interventions are inadequate and several principles for improving their content are given. A locally controlled ethnographic approach to evaluate endogenous community-led change is described in the hope that program planners and evaluators may become more sensitive and receptive to local knowledge. We suggest that engagement with what we have termed the ‘community story’ should be a fundamental requirement for the planning and evaluation of community health programs.

Key words: community development; evaluation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
J. C. Simpson, L. G. L. Morrison, J. D. Langley, and P. A. Memon
The process and impact of implementing injury prevention projects in smaller communities in New Zealand
Health Promot. Int., September 1, 2003; 18(3): 237 - 245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
M. N. Nguyen and J. Otis
Evaluating the Fabreville Heart Health Program in Laval, Canada: a dialogue between two paradigms, positivism and constructivism
Health Promot. Int., June 1, 2003; 18(2): 127 - 134.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EvaluationHome page
J. C. Lucke, M. Donald, J. Dower, and B. Raphael
Considerations in the Design of a Mixed-Method Cluster Evaluation of a Community Programme for 'At-Risk' Young People
Evaluation, January 1, 2001; 7(1): 110 - 131.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Educ ResHome page
R. Labonte, J. Feather, and M. Hills
A story/dialogue method for health promotion knowledge development and evaluation
Health Educ. Res., February 1, 1999; 14(1): 39 - 50.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Education JournalHome page
H. Smart
Evaluating community development for health: a survey of evaluation activity across the Lothians
Health Education Journal, January 1, 1999; 58(4): 355 - 364.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Education JournalHome page
R. Labonte
Health promotion in the near future: remembrances of activism past
Health Education Journal, January 1, 1999; 58(4): 365 - 377.
[PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.