The research presented within this paper case studies two nonprofit organisations in order to gain the perspectives of beneficiaries, staff, and board members on the participation of beneficiaries in evaluating the organisation. The aim of the research is to reconsider more traditional beneficiary participative evaluation approaches through the critical lens of dialogic accounting theory. The research draws on theories of dialogic accounting and transformative participatory evaluation to posit an agonistic approach to beneficiary participative evaluation. Findings reveal the importance of considering patterns of beneficiary engagement within the nonprofit organisation, what beneficiaries want the outcome of the evaluation to be, and the operation of pluralism at multiple levels. All of these are important so as to avoid an accountability ‘sham-ritual’, where beneficiary engagement is symbolic rather than substantive. Findings lead to the development of participative evaluation frameworks for each case studied.