Evaluation

http://evi.sagepub.com Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

Laurie Stevahn and Jean A. King Evaluation 2005; 11; 415 DOI: 10.1177/1356389005059384 The online version of this article can be found at: http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/415

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

Additional services and information for Evaluation can be found at: Email Alerts: http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://evi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/4/415

Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi) DOI: 10.1177/1356389005059384 Vol 11(4): 415427

Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation

L A U R I E S T E VA H N
Seattle University

JEAN A. KING
University of Minnesota Evaluators almost inevitably experience conict in the course of conducting evaluation studies. This article rst presents two theoretical frameworks from social psychology conict strategies theory and constructive conict resolution theory useful for constructively managing conict in evaluation settings. Second, we discuss theory-derived skills related to structuring cooperative goals and tasks in evaluation studies as well as how to use integrative negotiation procedures to address disputes that arise during the evaluation process. Finally, we explain how these theories can provide evaluators with a lens through which to analyze evaluation contexts, thereby helping them to make wise decisions for effective evaluation practice. K E Y WO R D S : conict resolution; evaluator skills; integrative negotiation; participatory evaluation; situational analysis

Introduction
Usually, to experience a program evaluation is to experience conict. Most evaluators can readily recall examples of conict in their own practice like the time the program director exerted political pressure to nish the project quickly, putting at risk the evaluators ability to collect needed data from a range of diverse stakeholders. Or when evaluation sponsors insisted on launching a survey that the evaluator knew would not adequately meet the information needs of the service providers who would use the ndings. Or the time when the evaluator facilitated a participatory evaluation planning session that ended in frustration because committee members could not agree on the underlying purpose of their evaluation, much less on evaluation questions. All of these examples illustrate Deutschs (1973: 10) classic denition: conict exists whenever incompatible activities occur. Incompatible activities among individuals (or groups) in program evaluation situations are those that block, frustrate, or prevent the accomplishment of goals. 415
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) Sometimes evaluators experience conict directly with stakeholders, as when the actions of program leaders, staff, or policymakers jeopardize efforts to assure the utility, feasibility, propriety, or accuracy of an evaluation study (see the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994). In other instances, evaluators collaborating on a study may experience conict among themselves, as when they disagree over how best to design or implement the study. Alternatively, evaluators may witness conicts among organization members, as when arguments or disputes arise over program policies, job responsibilities, or resource allocations. Regardless of the issue, however, or of who is directly involved, every conict can disrupt and potentially derail an evaluation study. The question becomes: what path will conict take? Anger, fear, and frustration often trigger defensive responses that lead to destructive actions, winlose outcomes, and long-lasting scars. In contrast, working to understand diverse interests and exploring alternative solutions for mutual benet often produce the type of winwin outcomes that enhance human relations for future productivity. Evaluators who choose a constructive path for managing conicts in program evaluation intentionally will pursue an array of activities to support that quest. For example, they will observe the interpersonal dynamics that unfold in evaluation settings. They will recognize and appropriately confront conict situations that occur. They will know strategic alternative responses to conict and the likely impact of each. They will use integrative negotiation skills for mutual problem solving. They will assist clients or co-workers in enacting constructive conict skills. To engage in these activities expertly, we suggest that evaluators: become knowledgeable about theoretical frameworks that underpin constructive conict resolution; develop skills for managing conict constructively; and analyze each evaluation context for conict and take appropriate action. In this article, we elaborate on each of the above courses of action from a social-psychological perspective, drawing upon conict theory and research in that eld. First, we present two theoretical frameworks for thinking about conict, namely conict strategies theory (Johnson and Johnson, 2003) and constructive conict resolution theory (Deutsch, 1973). Second, we describe skills derived from those theories for making conict constructive, including how to structure cooperative goals in evaluation studies and how to negotiate for mutual problem solving. Finally, we illustrate how evaluators can use the conict theories and skills both to analyze the situational context of program evaluations and to respond constructively to conict when it occurs in evaluation studies.

Theoretical Frameworks for Constructive Conict Resolution

Although theories about conict exist in nearly every academic discipline, two theories from social psychology provide evaluators with particularly useful frameworks for conceptualizing the dynamics of conict in evaluation contexts. These theories conict strategies theory and constructive conict resolution 416
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation theory alert us to the role that interpersonal relationships play in determining the course of conict. Moreover, a sizeable body of empirical research supports these theories, increasing our condence in their applicability across diverse settings (e.g. see Deutsch, 1973; Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993).

Conict Strategies Theory

When conict occurs in an evaluation study, how do those involved respond? Do they push to get their way? Retreat to avoid the issue? Appease to promote harmony? Strike a deal for partial gain? Problem-solve for mutual satisfaction? Conict strategies theory (Johnson and Johnson, 2003) explicates these ve types of responses. Articulated by a variety of researchers (e.g. Filley, 1975; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976), the theory originated in Blake and Moutons (1964) managerial grid. It reminds us that people face two sets of concerns in conict situations: (1) achieving desired goals/interests and (2) maintaining positive working relationships. Placing these dual concerns on intersecting continua from low to high importance results in the ve strategies for dealing with conict (see Figure 1).

High Smoothing (Appease) Cooperative Problem Solving (Mutually Resolve)

RELATIONSHIPS Compromising (Split 5050)

Withdrawing (Avoid)

Forcing (Conquer)

Low Low GOALS High

Figure 1. Conict Strategies Theory. Adapted from Johnson and Johnson (1995: 4:2) 1975 by David W. Johnson. Reprinted with permission.

417
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) Forcing This means achieving ones own goals at the expense of others what matter are self-interests, not relationships. Like opponents struggling against each other in a competitive game, winning requires conquest. Someone loses and relationships suffer. A program leader, for example, who demands an evaluation regardless of its likely effect on staff and clients may get the study done, but create organizational dysfunction as a result. Withdrawing This means giving up both ones own goals and positive relationships with others neither self-interests nor relationships matter. Running away or hiding to avoid conict makes everyone a loser because nothing gets resolved. An evaluation team member, for example, who misses meetings and never responds to voice-mail or email messages not only blocks the evaluation process, but also creates distance and distrust. Smoothing This means giving up ones own goals to keep positive relationships with others at the highest possible level. Appeasing satises others, but requires sacricing self-interest. In an evaluation context, steering committee members may willingly agree with the evaluators plan for data collection, but not express desired alternatives, fearing the tension or discomfort that may ensue. Compromising This means seeking a 5050 split through give-and-take concessions when both ones own goals and relationships with others are moderately important. Realizing the benets of partial gain, settling for half seems better than getting nothing at all. In a large-scale evaluation, for example, a collaborator may agree to include some seemingly less important items on a paper-pencil, checkbox survey in exchange for the opportunity to conduct several interactive focus groups that can provide narrative data. Problem solving This means cooperative negotiation aimed at maximizing joint outcomes both self-interests and relationships with others are important. Carefully considering all interests and creating integrative solutions that benet everyone allow everyone to win. In evaluation studies, this involves listening to all concerns and creating integrative solutions that result in mutual gain. For example, the data dialogue group method for expediently and inexpensively collecting qualitative data from large numbers of stakeholders emerged through such a mutual problem-solving process (see Stevahn et al., in preparation). Based on cooperative learning group techniques, this new qualitative method for data collection in a large-scale evaluation study simultaneously satised three conicting interests of participants: (1) those concerned with obtaining narrative data in addition to quantitative survey responses, (2) those concerned with evaluation budget constraints that made conducting numerous focus groups problematic, and (3) those concerned with adequate sampling to increase condence in the qualitative results. Although conict is fraught with complexity, the dual concerns model provides a useful lens through which to assess conict in evaluation situations. Clearly, when individuals force their way through conicts or withdraw to avoid the entire 418
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation situation, little hope exists for constructive outcomes. We emphasize, however, that well-rounded competence in dealing with conict requires skill in all ve strategies. At times it may be in an evaluators best interest to stand ground in a dignied way or exit gracefully from an unproductive situation. Doing so, however, risks jeopardizing future relationships. If evaluators are working with others over time or in future endeavors, nding ways to problem solve will tend to produce the most constructive outcomes as well as positive working relationships. Problem solving, moreover, tends to evolve when individuals perceive their interdependence in achieving meaningful cooperative goals, as elaborated in the next section.

Constructive Conict Resolution Theory

Deutschs (1973) theory of constructive conict resolution further illuminates dynamics of conict by alerting us to different goal structures that exist among individuals and how those structures inuence behaviors in conict situations (see Figure 2). Originating from social interdependence theory (see Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b; Johnson and Johnson, 1989), empirical evidence suggests that cooperative goals establish positive interdependence among individuals, thereby creating interpersonal situations in which everyone needs each other to succeed. In contrast, competitive goals establish negative interdependence among individuals, thereby creating interpersonal situations in which one can succeed or win only when others fail or lose. Constructive conict resolution theory posits that the type of goal structure (cooperative or competitive) that exists among individuals or groups in conict situations inuences interpersonal or intergroup interactions (promotive/responsive or oppositional/obstructive), which, in turn, determines the resolution of the conict (constructive or destructive). Simply put, individuals responses to conict tend to differ according to their degree of investment in each others success. Problem-solving behavior (similar to cooperative problem solving in the dual concerns model) will more likely evolve when
Cooperative (characterized by positive interdependence) Promotive/Responsive (mutual problem solving for joint benefit) Constructive (winwin)

Goal Structure

Interaction

Outcome

Competitive (characterized by negative interdependence)

Oppositional/Obstructive (concession-seeking for exclusive benefit)

Destructive (winlose)

Figure 2. Deutschs (1973) Theory of Constructive Conict Resolution

419
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) participants perceive that each persons individual success depends on the success of the entire group, and vice versa. In evaluation studies, for example, when members of a data analysis team perceive that they need the unique expertise and skills of all team members to complete the analysis successfully such as when the skills of both quantitative and qualitative experts are needed it makes more sense to engage in problem-solving behavior when conicts arise. Relationships matter, and cooperative goal structures that require interdependent efforts tend to induce the type of caring relationships (even if only instrumental) that lead to constructive interactions and outcomes. Repeatedly, experimental and correlational research indicates that cooperative compared to competitive goal structures result in more trusting and friendly attitudes among individuals, more open and honest communication of relevant information, increased sensitivity to common interests, and greater responsiveness to each others needs (Deutsch, 1973, 2000). Knowing how goal structures affect human interaction enables evaluators to better assess situational contexts in program evaluation studies, especially if asked to facilitate participatory studies. Participatory approaches to evaluation in competitive contexts may well prove difcult and best intentions to the contrary may ultimately fail.

Evaluator Competencies for Constructive Conict Resolution

Although conceptual knowledge provides helpful guidance for decision making in conict situations, successful action requires skills. Important sets of skills include (1) learning how to structure evaluation goals and tasks cooperatively and (2) mastering integrative negotiation procedures.

Structuring Cooperative Goals

Cooperative contexts set the stage for managing conict constructively. Perhaps one of the most important skills an evaluator can learn, therefore, is how to structure positive interdependence into social situations and evaluation tasks especially when using participatory approaches. Repeatedly doing so in evaluation studies can build the capacity for developing productive working relationships that will lead to problem solving rather than less productive responses when conict occurs. Regardless of who takes charge of an evaluation and to what extent, some degree of interaction must occur between the evaluator and those sponsoring the study or running the program. The interactive evaluation practice continuum (King and Stevahn, 2002a) highlights this imperative (see Figure 3). The evaluator may take primary responsibility for designing and conducting studies in the traditional sense, or facilitate participatory approaches aimed at mutually working with stakeholders to plan and implement studies (such as in collaborative evaluation, democratic deliberative evaluation, empowerment evaluation, transformative evaluation, and so on), or provide feedback and advice in a consultative fashion when sought by those already engaged in selfdirected studies such as action research. Although the frequency of interaction 420
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation

Evaluator HIGH Involvement in evaluation decision making and implementation Traditional Evaluation Participatory Evaluation Zones Action Research LOW

Program leaders, staff, stakeholders

Figure 3. Interactive Evaluation Practice Continuum. From King and Stevahn (2002a: 5). Reprinted with permission.

may vary potentially more continuous in participatory approaches than in traditional or self-directed studies each interaction provides an opportunity for examining existing goal structures and (when appropriate) establishing conditions that support cooperative goals and relationships. In particular, participatory approaches (by whatever name) often provide evaluators with unique opportunities to structure cooperative goals. In fact, organizations or clients who seek participatory studies often do so to increase commitment to using shared ndings, maximize involvement for evaluation capacity building, or develop systemic ability to continually engage in selfdirected studies for continuous improvement. Structuring positive interdependence into participatory evaluation tasks becomes a starting point. Evaluators promote cooperative relationships when they use positive interdependence as a tool for arranging tasks in ways that require collaborative interaction for success. Positive interdependence can be structured into almost any evaluation task, including those aimed at explicating program theory, framing evaluation questions, determining designs and methods, collecting and analyzing data, interpreting ndings, making recommendations, and reporting results. Doing so means emphasizing that everyones contributions are interconnected and necessary for accomplishing each task, as well as arranging materials, roles, and incentives in ways that foster coordinated efforts. The three-step interview strategy provides an example. Evaluators who wish to involve participants cooperatively in articulating program theory can use the three-step interview strategy (see Bennett et al., 1991; King and Stevahn, 2002b, 2004). After arranging participants in groups of three, the evaluator explains that each participant will enact the role of interviewer, responder, or recorder to address the following questions: When you think of success in your program, what story immediately comes to mind? When and where did it happen? Who was involved? What was accomplished? Why was 421
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) that accomplishment important? What factors contributed to the success? Respectively rotating the interconnected roles after each round and recording each persons input on a single, shared answer sheet highlights the mutual interdependence necessary to complete the group task. In doing so, participants build positive relationships through respectful listening and understand more clearly their underlying assumptions of what makes their program successful. Other cooperative strategies that promote positive interdependence among participants also can be used in participatory approaches to evaluation, including the data dialogue and grafti strategies for collecting data, the concept formation and jigsaw strategies for analyzing data, the corners and cooperative rank order strategies for prioritizing questions or recommendations, and so on (see King and Stevahn, 2002b, 2004; Stevahn, 1998). By seeking constantly to build cooperative relationships among evaluation participants, the evaluator works in advance to create conditions conducive to resolving conict constructively when it occurs.

Negotiating for Mutual Gain

When conicts arise, disputants often turn to negotiation as a means through which to resolve the issues. Essentially, negotiation involves individuals (or groups) in an interactive process that can be underpinned by competitive or cooperative goals. As described in the previous section, these different goal orientations inuence the interactions and outcomes that result. Specically, competitive goals fuel distributive negotiation in which one aims to maximize personal outcomes at the expense of others. Such negotiation involves disputants in winlose battles as each tries to defeat the other by coercing concessions (similar to the forcing strategy previously described in the dual concerns model). Numerous strategies and tactics for negotiating competitively exist and have been widely published (e.g. Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Lewicki et al., 1999; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993). In contrast, cooperative goals fuel integrative negotiation in which all disputants aim to maximize everyones outcomes. This type of negotiation involves disputants in mutual problem solving for joint gain (associated with cooperative problem solving previously described in the dual concerns model). Skills for negotiating cooperatively include the following (see Johnson, 1967, 1971, 1974; Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Lewicki et al., 1999): expressing cooperative intentions; mutually dening the conict; stating wants; expressing feelings; explaining underlying reasons/interests; reversing perspectives to communicate understanding; generating multiple integrative solutions that attend to all interests; reaching agreement on a mutual solution; and processing the effectiveness of the problem-solving process.

Although evaluators rarely receive formal training in cooperative negotiation skills, some believe that these skills are essential (King et al., 2001; Stevahn et al., 422
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation 2005). The importance of developing expertise in integrative negotiation, along with a host of related interpersonal skills such as communication, group facilitation, group processing, teamwork/collaboration, and cross-cultural skills may increase as the eld continues to focus on various evaluation approaches that involve interaction among evaluators and stakeholders. For example, recent attention to evaluation capacity building (see Compton et al., 2002; McDonald et al., 2003; Sonnichsen, 2000) necessarily highlights the interactive nature of many evaluation studies. As the evaluation capacity-building continuum indicates (see Figure 4), evaluators may involve stakeholders/participants in an evaluation study to increase their commitment to using results, thereby employing participatory approaches that aim to foster shared planning and implementation among stakeholders and evaluators alike. Evaluators may also, however, interact with participants/stakeholders for the explicit purpose of building their capacity to conduct ongoing studies for sustained organization development, thereby attempting to equip those in the organization with the skills necessary to continuously conduct self-directed action research studies. Doing so gradually shifts the role of the evaluator to that of an advisor providing feedback in an ongoing evaluation process rather than acting as the initiator/director who involves stakeholders in evaluation studies. In any case and particularly when using participatory approaches the effectiveness of evaluators will be inextricably linked to the effectiveness of their interpersonal skills. Integrative negotiation is one of those important skills because conicts will occur and will most likely be resolved one way or another i.e. constructively or destructively. By mastering integrative negotiation skills and using them when needed, evaluators can purposefully exert inuence toward constructive outcomes.

Applying Conict Theories and Competencies in Evaluation Studies

Understanding conict theories and developing conict competencies can enhance the efforts of evaluators in several ways. First, equipped with conceptual understanding of conict and skills to enact constructive outcomes, evaluators can more comprehensively assess both the object and context of an evaluation by looking at each with an eye for conict. Just as analyzing the political context helps evaluators decide if it will be feasible to conduct an evaluation study (e.g.

Formative/Summative evaluation study Use of single study process/results

Evaluation specifically for building capacity to evaluate ECB = creating capacity to conduct evaluations

Evaluation for organization development Capacity to sustain change

Figure 4. Evaluation Capacity-Building (ECB) Continuum. From King and Stevahn (2002a: 8). Reprinted with permission.

423
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) Worthen et al., 1997), examining the nature, frequency, and patterns of cooperation and conict within the program/organization also reveals valuable information relevant to that decision. Both external evaluators (who serve as outside sources to the program/organization) as well as internal evaluators (who work full time in the program/organization) can benet from habitually asking questions that reveal (a) existing goal structures within programs/organizations, (b) the breadth and depth of cooperative interaction among individuals in such programs/organizations, and (c) how those individuals respond to conict situations that arise. Useful questions include the following.

Goal Structures
What types of goal structures predominantly exist within the program? When and where do people work cooperatively, competitively, or individualistically? To what extent does the program/organization value cooperative efforts and mutual problem solving? How does the program/organization support or reward such efforts? What are the mutual goals to which everyone is committed? To what extent is mutual problem solving a way of life? What rules, routines, and norms support cooperative interaction and constructive conict resolution?

Cooperative Interaction
What tasks within the program/organization require people to coordinate their ideas, resources, and energy to be successful? Do cooperative tasks have welldened mutual goals? What types of incentives make individuals want to work together? How do individuals benet from working together? What motivates cooperative behavior within the program/organization? What types of tangible rewards exist for collaborative work? How do people coordinate their efforts? Does the physical work space promote (or block) cooperative interaction?

Conict Situations
What types of conicts occur in the program/organization? How do people respond? Do they predominately force, withdraw, smooth, compromise, or problem solve? What communication patterns unfold in conict situations? To what extent do people hold positive attitudes toward resolving conict? Do individuals express cooperative intentions for mutual problem solving when conicts occur? Do leaders model and use constructive conict procedures? Second, equipped with conict theories and skills, evaluators can more readily and constructively manage conict when it occurs. Whether discussing evaluation options with a client in a traditional study, facilitating mutual involvement with stakeholders in a participatory study, or providing professional advice to those conducting action research, evaluators who know how to resolve conicts constructively can systematically guide interactions toward mutual problem solving and integrative solutions. This can take the form of evaluators actually using conict skills when personally facing conicts, mediating the conicts of others, or teaching the skills to others when appropriate (as it often is in participatory approaches). Although program evaluation itself is rarely a helpful tool to address organizational conict directly, the actions of evaluators 424
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation throughout evaluation studies can contribute to inuencing the various pathways that conict may take primarily constructive or destructive. Third, evaluators who understand conict theories and skills can help create project or organizational norms for constructive conict resolution by structuring cooperative relationships. Knowing how to structure positive interdependence into evaluation tasks especially in participatory approaches not only enables evaluators to promote stakeholder commitment to the process and outcomes of the evaluation, but also helps build an organizational infrastructure that will promote and support problem-solving negotiation when conict occurs. Fourth, by understanding conict theories, evaluators can better reect on their own reactions and responses to conict. We all have different triggers, tolerances, and thresholds in conict situations. Reecting on personal conict patterns in relation to conict strategies theory, for example, may help evaluators become more purposeful and strategic in their responses to conict. It pays to pick and choose battles, as well as how to engage in them. Evaluators can systematically decide when to problem solve, compromise, smooth, withdraw, or force by weighing both the importance of achieving goals and maintaining positive working relationships with others. By better understanding conict situations, evaluators can choose to deal with each conict intentionally rather than haphazardly.

Conclusion
For highly practical reasons, linguists tell us, the Inuit language contains multiple terms for snow in order to distinguish its different types. Similarly, the English language contains multiple terms for conict dispute, dissension, disagreement, controversy, strife, friction, dissonance, argument, discord, and so on. These words speak of the commonality of conict in human interactions. People who are unable or who refuse to engage in dialogue, casting their competing values only in shades of black and white, will never nd mutual solutions. It is also important to remember that numerous factors affect conict situations. Some of those include (a) the nature of the issues those that tap into deeply ingrained values and beliefs are more challenging to resolve than those that deal with control over resources (such as money, space, time) or preferences (such as having music on or off, eating out or in, vacationing at home or abroad), (b) peoples ability to manage anger and control emotions, (c) power relations (low versus high), (d) levels of trust and suspicion, (e) cultural differences/considerations, and (f) intergroup conict versus interpersonal conict (such as when multiple parties or coalitions are involved in the conict rather than only a few individuals). Despite this complexity, the theories presented in this article, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence, tend to hold true. So, too, the skills presented tend to produce positive outcomes, again, well-supported by empirical research in social and organizational psychology. Conict is inevitable, but we surely understand it now in ways that were unthought of one hundred years ago. What, then, is a realistic role for the evaluator in conict situations? This article has briey presented several strategies: recognize that conicts occur, observe 425
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Evaluation 11(4) how individuals respond to conict, assess organizational and evaluation goal structures among individuals, and use appropriate conict strategies and negotiation skills during an evaluation study. Throughout, remember that social context is crucial. Attempting to use integrative negotiation in a competitive context will be frustrating at best and based on our knowledge of goal structures probably doomed to fail. Success in managing conict constructively realistically will be possible only when we work to change competitive/individualistic goal structures to promote cooperative relationships within programs/organizations and program evaluations. The role of the evaluator is to recognize the impact of social structures and relationships and work to make them cooperative. In so doing, the evaluator can play a critical role in dealing with conict constructively in order to conduct effective studies even in challenging situations.

References
Bennett, B., C. Rolheiser and L. Stevahn (1991) Cooperative Learning: Where Heart Meets Mind. Toronto: Educational Connections. Blake, R. and J. Mouton (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Compton, D. W., M. Baizerman and S. H. Stockdill, eds (2002) The Art, Craft, and Science of Evaluation Capacity Building, New Directions for Evaluation 93 (special issue). Deutsch, M. (1949a) A Theory of Cooperation and Competition, Human Relations 2: 12951. Deutsch, M. (1949b) An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Competition upon Group Process, Human Relations 2: 199231. Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Deutsch, M. (2000) Cooperation and Competition, in M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (eds) The Handbook of Conict Resolution: Theory and Practice, pp. 2140. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Filley, A. (1975) Interpersonal Conict Resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Johnson, D. W. (1967) The Use of Role Reversal in Intergroup Competition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7: 13541. Johnson, D. W. (1971) Role Reversal: A Summary and Review of the Research, International Journal of Group Tensions 1: 31834. Johnson, D. W. (1974) Communication and the Inducement of Cooperative Behavior in Conicts: A Critical Review, Speech Monographs 4: 6478. Johnson, D. W. and F. P. Johnson (2003) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989) Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1995) Teaching Students to be Peacemakers, 3rd edn. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994) The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. King, J. A. and L. Stevahn (2002a) Three Frameworks for Considering Evaluator Role, in K. E. Ryan and T. A. Schwandt (eds) Exploring Evaluator Role and Identity, pp. 116. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

426
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008

Stevahn and King: Managing Conict Constructively in Program Evaluation

King, J. A. and L. Stevahn (2002b) Participatory Evaluation Practice: Issues and Strategies, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Washington, DC, 6 Nov. King, J. A. and L. Stevahn (2004) Participatory Evaluation, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, GA, 12 Nov. King, J. A., L. Stevahn, G. Ghere and J. Minnema (2001) Toward a Taxonomy of Essential Evaluator Competencies, American Journal of Evaluation 22(2): 22947. Lewicki, R. J., D. M. Saunders and J. W. Minton (1999) Negotiation, 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. McDonald, B., P. Rogers and B. Kefford (2003) Teaching People to Fish? Building the Evaluation Capability of Public Sector Organizations, Evaluation 9(1): 929. Pruitt, D. G. and P. J. Carnevale (1993) Negotiation in Social Conict. Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Pruitt, D. G. and J. Rubin (1986) Social Conict. New York: Random House. Rahim, M. (1983) A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conict, Academy of Management Journal 26: 36876. Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000) High Impact Internal Evaluation: A Practitioners Guide to Evaluating and Consulting inside Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Stevahn, L. (1998) Positive Interdependence: A Tool for Promoting Use of Program Evaluations, unpublished manuscript. Stevahn, L., J. A. King, G. Ghere and J. Minnema (2005) Establishing Essential Competencies for Program Evaluators, American Journal of Evaluation 26(1): 4359. Stevahn, L., J. A. King and V. McKendall (in preparation) Data Dialogue Groups: A LowCost Alternative to Focus Groups. Thomas, K. (1976) Conict and Conict Management, in M. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 889935. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Worthen, B. R., J. R. Sanders and J. L. Fitzpatrick (1997) Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.

L A U R I E S T E VA H N is assistant professor and director of the graduate program in curriculum and instruction in the College of Education at Seattle University. Please address correspondence to Director of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Seattle University, PO Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122, USA. [email: stevahnl@seattleu.edu] J E A N A . K I N G is Professor in the Department of Educational Policy and Administration at the University of Minnesota where she coordinates the evaluation studies degree, certiciate and minor programs. Please address correspondence to: College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 86 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. [email: kingx004@umn.edu]

427
Downloaded from http://evi.sagepub.com at CAPES on December 20, 2008