Search

Among the continuing challenges naturalistic evaluators face is the practical need for defensible conclusions. Guba and Lincoln's external evaluation audit represents one response to this need. In this article, we share our firsthand experiences with such audits, including the evaluation context and the audits'purpose, procedures, and findings. From these experiences, we offer suggestions for future audit practice and discuss several controversies surrounding the audit concept. We conclude with the call for further discussion on these and other controversies, but also with an interim consensus that the audit represents a viable metaevaluative tool for enhancing the internal quality, the external defensibility, and thus the stature and utilization of naturalistic evaluation.

Growing out of the authors' experiences with two evaluation audits, this article builds upon the discussion of evaluation audits begun in Greene et al. (Evaluation Review, August, 1988). The article highlights thefollowingfour issues salient to evaluation audits: (1) the importance of thorough contract negotiations and the orientation to the evaluation and audit trail, (2) the power of audits to detect bias, (3) the place of standards and criteria in naturalistic evaluations, and (4) the audit purpose. The authors confirm some of the conclusions from the literature while raising new issues for discussion. They conclude that the audit is an excellent tool for addressing the questions of trustworthiness and quality control in naturalistic enquiry.