ArticlesArticles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include, but are not limited to, reviews of new developments in evaluation and descriptions of a current evaluation effort, problem, or technique. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and normally should not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length; longer articles will occasionally be published, but only where their importance to EP readers is judged to be quite high.
ABSTRACTIn this paper, we object to Michael Scriven's claim that the basic logic of evaluation is criterial and standards-based. We note that valuing is an integral part of perception and that valuing within perception, repeatedly refined, is an even more basic logic of evaluation. We find unpersuasive his claim that making the final synthesis "governed" will diminish bias, noting that bias will find its way into the required statements of need, function, standards and weighting. We offer our alternative for disciplining the synthesis process, by urging more systematic and demanding critiques of Robert Stake emerging interpretations and values, and by more deliberately using competing conceptual organizers (e.g., goals, issues, decisions and elements of the rules Scriven advocates) as temporary and dialectical grounds for reconsidering the evolving meanings of the program, including its merit and shortcoming.
In this paper, we object to Michael Scriven's claim that the basic logic of evaluation is criterial and standards-based. We note that valuing is an integral part of perception and that valuing within perception, repeatedly refined, is an even more basic logic of evaluation. We find unpersuasive his claim that making the final synthesis “governed” will diminish bias, noting that bias will find its way into the required statements of need, function, standards and weighting. We offer our alternative for disciplining the synthesis process, by urging more systematic and demanding critiques of emerging interpretations and values, and by more deliberately using competing conceptual organizers (e.g., goals, issues, decisions and elements of the rules Scriven advocates) as temporary and dialectical grounds for reconsidering the evolving meanings of the program, including its merit and shortcoming.
Current idealized evaluation practices are often modeled on a probative, criteria and standards-based approach endorsed by Michael Scriven. The authors find this logical, rule-governed approach insufficient for most program evaluations. By focusing on more technical aspects of the evaluand and the evaluative process, important and valid evaluand characteristics and stakeholder viewpoints can be lost or marginalized. The authors believe a dialectical evaluation process will generate fuller representations of quality while also treating the evaluand as more than simply a technical object. In this article, the authors summarize the probative evaluation approach, discuss aspects of moral reasoning that may limit this standards-based model, and propose an alternative dialectical persuasion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.