U10D1-28 - Personal Reflection on Public Needs Assessment Project...FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS OUTLINED BELOW

Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

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

J E A N A . K I N G University of Minnesota

Evaluators almost inevitably experience conflict in the course of conducting evaluation studies. This article first presents two theoretical frameworks from social psychology – conflict strategies theory and constructive conflict resolution theory – useful for constructively managing conflict 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 W O R D S : conflict resolution; evaluator skills; integrative negotiation; participatory evaluation; situational analysis

Introduction

Usually, to experience a program evaluation is to experience conflict. Most evalu- ators can readily recall examples of conflict in their own practice – like the time the program director exerted political pressure to ‘finish the project quickly’, putting at risk the evaluator’s 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 findings. 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 Deutsch’s (1973: 10) classic definition: ‘conflict 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.

Evaluation Copyright © 2005

SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi)

DOI: 10.1177/1356389005059384 Vol 11(4): 415–427

415

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 415

Sometimes evaluators experience conflict 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 conflict among themselves, as when they disagree over how best to design or implement the study. Alterna- tively, evaluators may witness conflicts 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 conflict can disrupt and potentially derail an evaluation study. The question becomes: what path will conflict take? Anger, fear, and frustration often trigger defensive responses that lead to destructive actions, ‘win–lose’ outcomes, and long-lasting scars. In contrast, working to understand diverse interests and explor- ing alternative solutions for mutual benefit often produce the type of ‘win–win’ outcomes that enhance human relations for future productivity.

Evaluators who choose a constructive path for managing conflicts 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 evalu- ation settings. They will recognize and appropriately confront conflict situations that occur. They will know strategic alternative responses to conflict 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 conflict skills. To engage in these activities expertly, we suggest that evaluators:

• become knowledgeable about theoretical frameworks that underpin con- structive conflict resolution;

• develop skills for managing conflict constructively; and • analyze each evaluation context for conflict and take appropriate action.

In this article, we elaborate on each of the above courses of action from a social-psychological perspective, drawing upon conflict theory and research in that field. First, we present two theoretical frameworks for thinking about conflict, namely conflict strategies theory (Johnson and Johnson, 2003) and constructive conflict resolution theory (Deutsch, 1973). Second, we describe skills derived from those theories for making conflict 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 conflict theories and skills both to analyze the situational context of program evaluations and to respond constructively to conflict when it occurs in evaluation studies.

Theoretical Frameworks for Constructive Conflict Resolution

Although theories about conflict exist in nearly every academic discipline, two theories from social psychology provide evaluators with particularly useful frameworks for conceptualizing the dynamics of conflict in evaluation contexts. These theories – conflict strategies theory and constructive conflict resolution

Evaluation 11(4)

416

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 416

theory – alert us to the role that interpersonal relationships play in determining the course of conflict. Moreover, a sizeable body of empirical research supports these theories, increasing our confidence in their applicability across diverse settings (e.g. see Deutsch, 1973; Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993).

Conflict Strategies Theory When conflict 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? Conflict strategies theory (Johnson and Johnson, 2003) explicates these five 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 Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. It reminds us that people face two sets of concerns in conflict 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 five strategies for dealing with conflict (see Figure 1).

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

417

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

High

Low

RELATIONSHIPS

GOALS Low High

Smoothing (Appease)

Cooperative Problem Solving

(Mutually Resolve)

Compromising (Split 50–50)

Withdrawing (Avoid)

Forcing (Conquer)

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 417

Forcing This means achieving one’s 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 one’s own goals and positive relation- ships with others – neither self-interests nor relationships matter. Running away or hiding to avoid conflict 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 one’s own goals to keep positive relationships with others at the highest possible level. Appeasing satisfies others, but requires sacrificing self-interest. In an evaluation context, steering committee members may willingly agree with the evaluator’s plan for data collection, but not express desired alternatives, fearing the tension or discomfort that may ensue.

Compromising This means seeking a 50–50 split through give-and-take conces- sions when both one’s own goals and relationships with others are moderately important. Realizing the benefits 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, check- box 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 benefit 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 satisfied three con- flicting 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 confidence in the qualitative results.

Although conflict is fraught with complexity, the dual concerns model provides a useful lens through which to assess conflict in evaluation situations. Clearly, when individuals force their way through conflicts or withdraw to avoid the entire

Evaluation 11(4)

418

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 418

situation, little hope exists for constructive outcomes. We emphasize, however, that well-rounded competence in dealing with conflict requires skill in all five strategies. At times it may be in an evaluator’s best interest to stand ground in a dignified 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, finding ways to problem solve will tend to produce the most constructive outcomes as well as positive working relation- ships. Problem solving, moreover, tends to evolve when individuals perceive their interdependence in achieving meaningful cooperative goals, as elaborated in the next section.

Constructive Conflict Resolution Theory Deutsch’s (1973) theory of constructive conflict resolution further illuminates dynamics of conflict by alerting us to different goal structures that exist among individuals and how those structures influence behaviors in conflict 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 interper- sonal 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 conflict resolution theory posits that the type of goal structure (cooperative or competitive) that exists among individuals or groups in conflict situations influences interpersonal or intergroup interactions (promotive/responsive or oppositional/obstructive), which, in turn, determines the resolution of the conflict (constructive or destructive). Simply put, indi- viduals’ responses to conflict tend to differ according to their degree of invest- ment in each other’s success. Problem-solving behavior (similar to cooperative problem solving in the dual concerns model) will more likely evolve when

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

419

Figure 2. Deutsch’s (1973) Theory of Constructive Conflict Resolution

Competitive

(characterized by negative interdependence)

Oppositional/Obstructive

(concession-seeking for exclusive benefit)

Destructive

(win–lose)

Cooperative

(characterized by positive interdependence)

Promotive/Responsive

(mutual problem solving for joint benefit)

Constructive

(win–win)

Goal Structure Interaction Outcome

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 419

participants perceive that each person’s 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 exper- tise 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 conflicts arise. Relationships matter, and cooperative goal structures that require interdepen- dent efforts tend to induce the type of caring relationships (even if only instru- mental) 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 atti- tudes among individuals, more open and honest communication of relevant infor- mation, increased sensitivity to common interests, and greater responsiveness to each other’s 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 difficult and – best intentions to the contrary – may ultimately fail.

Evaluator Competencies for Constructive Conflict Resolution

Although conceptual knowledge provides helpful guidance for decision making in conflict 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 conflict constructively. Perhaps one of the most important skills an evaluator can learn, therefore, is how to struc- ture positive interdependence into social situations and evaluation tasks – especi- ally 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 conflict 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 self- directed studies such as action research. Although the frequency of interaction

Evaluation 11(4)

420

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 420

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 findings, maximize involvement for evaluation capacity building, or develop systemic ability to continually engage in self- directed studies for continuous improvement. Structuring positive interdepen- dence 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 ques- tions, determining designs and methods, collecting and analyzing data, interpret- ing findings, making recommendations, and reporting results. Doing so means emphasizing that everyone’s 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 inter- viewer, 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

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

421

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

Evaluator HIGH

LOW

Program leaders, staff, stakeholders

Traditional Evaluation

Participatory Evaluation

Zones

Action Research

In vo

lv e m

e n

t in

e va

lu a ti

o n

d e ci

si o

n m

a k in

g a

n d

im p

le m

e n

ta ti

o n

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 421

that accomplishment important? What factors contributed to the success?’ Respectively rotating the interconnected roles after each round and recording each person’s input on a single, shared answer sheet highlights the mutual inter- dependence 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 partici- pants also can be used in participatory approaches to evaluation, including the data dialogue and graffiti strategies for collecting data, the concept formation and jigsaw strategies for analyzing data, the corners and cooperative rank order strat- egies 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 conflict constructively when it occurs.

Negotiating for Mutual Gain When conflicts 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 influence the interactions and outcomes that result. Specifically, competitive goals fuel distributive negotiation in which one aims to maximize personal outcomes at the expense of others. Such negotiation involves disputants in win–lose 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 everyone’s 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 defining the conflict; • 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.,

Evaluation 11(4)

422

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 422

2005). The importance of developing expertise in integrative negotiation, along with a host of related interpersonal skills – such as communication, group facil- itation, group processing, teamwork/collaboration, and cross-cultural skills – may increase as the field 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 partici- patory 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 evalu- ators will be inextricably linked to the effectiveness of their interpersonal skills. Integrative negotiation is one of those important skills because conflicts will occur and will most likely be resolved one way or another – i.e. constructively or destruc- tively. By mastering integrative negotiation skills and using them when needed, evaluators can purposefully exert influence toward constructive outcomes.

Applying Conflict Theories and Competencies in Evaluation Studies

Understanding conflict theories and developing conflict competencies can enhance the efforts of evaluators in several ways. First, equipped with conceptual understanding of conflict 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 conflict’. Just as analyzing the political context helps evaluators decide if it will be feasible to conduct an evaluation study (e.g.

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

423

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

Formative/Summative evaluation study

Evaluation specifically for building capacity to evaluate

Evaluation for organization development

Use of single study process/results

ECB = creating capacity to conduct evaluations

Capacity to sustain change

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 423

Worthen et al., 1997), examining the nature, frequency, and patterns of cooper- ation and conflict within the program/organization also reveals valuable infor- mation 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 benefit from habitually asking ques- tions 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 conflict situa- tions 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 conflict 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 well- defined mutual goals? What types of incentives make individuals want to work together? How do individuals benefit 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?

Conflict Situations What types of conflicts occur in the program/organization? How do people respond? Do they predominately force, withdraw, smooth, compromise, or problem solve? What communication patterns unfold in conflict situations? To what extent do people hold positive attitudes toward resolving conflict? Do indi- viduals express cooperative intentions for mutual problem solving when conflicts occur? Do leaders model and use constructive conflict procedures?

Second, equipped with conflict theories and skills, evaluators can more readily and constructively manage conflict 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 conflicts constructively can systematically guide interactions toward mutual problem solving and integrative solutions. This can take the form of evaluators actually using conflict skills when personally facing conflicts, mediating the conflicts 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 conflict directly, the actions of evaluators

Evaluation 11(4)

424

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 424

throughout evaluation studies can contribute to influencing the various pathways that conflict may take – primarily constructive or destructive.

Third, evaluators who understand conflict theories and skills can help create project or organizational norms for constructive conflict resolution by structur- ing cooperative relationships. Knowing how to structure positive interdepen- dence 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 conflict occurs.

Fourth, by understanding conflict theories, evaluators can better reflect on their own reactions and responses to conflict. We all have different triggers, tolerances, and thresholds in conflict situations. Reflecting on personal conflict patterns in relation to conflict strategies theory, for example, may help evalua- tors become more purposeful and strategic in their responses to conflict. 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 conflict situations, evaluators can choose to deal with each conflict 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 conflict – dispute, dissension, disagreement, controversy, strife, friction, dissonance, argument, discord, and so on. These words speak of the commonality of conflict 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 find mutual solutions. It is also import- ant to remember that numerous factors affect conflict 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) people’s 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) inter- group conflict versus interpersonal conflict (such as when multiple parties or coalitions are involved in the conflict 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. Conflict 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 conflict situations? This article has briefly presented several strategies: recognize that conflicts occur, observe

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

425

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 425

how individuals respond to conflict, assess organizational and evaluation goal structures among individuals, and use appropriate conflict strategies and negoti- ation 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 conflict 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 conflict 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:

129–51. Deutsch, M. (1949b) ‘An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Com-

petition upon Group Process’, Human Relations 2: 199–231. Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict: 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 Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, pp. 21–40. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Filley, A. (1975) Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Johnson, D. W. (1967) ‘The Use of Role Reversal in Intergroup Competition’, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 7: 135–41. Johnson, D. W. (1971) ‘Role Reversal: A Summary and Review of the Research’, Inter-

national Journal of Group Tensions 1: 318–34. Johnson, D. W. (1974) ‘Communication and the Inducement of Cooperative Behavior in

Conflicts: A Critical Review’, Speech Monographs 4: 64–78. 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 Evalu-

ation 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. 1–16. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Evaluation 11(4)

426

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 426

King, J. A. and L. Stevahn (2002b) ‘Participatory Evaluation Practice: Issues and Strat- egies’, 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, 1–2 Nov.

King, J. A., L. Stevahn, G. Ghere and J. Minnema (2001) ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Essen- tial Evaluator Competencies’, American Journal of Evaluation 22(2): 229–47.

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): 9–29.

Pruitt, D. G. and P. J. Carnevale (1993) Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Pruitt, D. G. and J. Rubin (1986) Social Conflict. New York: Random House. Rahim, M. (1983) ‘A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict’, Academy of

Management Journal 26: 368–76. Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000) High Impact Internal Evaluation: A Practitioner’s Guide to Evalu-

ating 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 Com-

petencies for Program Evaluators’, American Journal of Evaluation 26(1): 43–59. Stevahn, L., J. A. King and V. McKendall (in preparation) ‘Data Dialogue Groups: A Low-

Cost Alternative to Focus Groups’. Thomas, K. (1976) ‘Conflict and Conflict Management’, in M. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook

of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 889–935. 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: [email protected]]

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, certificiate 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: [email protected]]

Stevahn and King: Managing Conflict Constructively in Program Evaluation

427

03 STEVAHN 059384 (bc-t) 21/11/05 4:06 pm Page 427