This paper addresses some of the concerns inherent in evaluating feminists' projects and focuses on three topics: (1) a discussion of some objections raised by feminists about traditional forms of assessment; (2) a description of the strengths and weaknesses of illuminative evaluation as an alternative approach to evaluate feminist programs; and (3) an introduction of a new model of evaluation which is termed "collaborative evaluation." Objections to traditional forms of assessment for women's studies programs or curriculum balancing projects include questioning the appropriateness of masculine models and criticizing the traditional split between participants and evaluators. Illuminative evaluation encompasses traditional experimental and psychometric practices, as well as phenomonological and ethnographic modes, and has been proposed to evaluate innovative projects. While this approach has been suitable in the evaluation of some women's programs, data collection instruments did not always elicit input from all appropriate participants. Evaluators were often knowledgeable insiders; they found it increasingly difficult to perform as independent outsiders. A recent evaluation of a women's studies program illustrates the use of the collaborative evaluation model. Collaborative evaluation permits evaluators of feminist projects to address the conflicting roles that they assume as impartial outsiders and as knowledgeable insiders. (GDC)