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.
Blood acid-base responses to handling were evaluated in slaughter weight pigs fed diets supplemented with l-carnitine and fat. The study was carried out as a randomized block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) dietary L-carnitine supplementation (0 vs. 150 ppm, as-fed basis); and 2) dietary fat supplementation (0 vs. 5%, as-fed basis). Sixty pigs (91.1 +/- 5.14 kg BW) were housed in mixed-gender groups of five and had ad libitum access to test diets (0.68% true ileal digestible lysine, 3,340 kcal of ME/kg, as-fed basis) for 3 wk. At the end of the feeding period (110.3 +/- 7.52 kg BW), pigs were subjected to a standard handling procedure, which consisted of moving individual animals through a facility (12.2 m long x 0.91 m wide) for eight laps (up and down the facility), using electric prods (two times per lap). There was no interaction between dietary L-carnitine and fat supplementation for any measurement. Pigs fed 150 ppm of supplemental L-carnitine had lower baseline blood glucose (P < 0.05) and higher baseline blood lactate (P < 0.05) concentrations than the nonsupplemented pigs. After handling, pigs fed L-carnitine-supplemented diets had a higher (P < 0.05) blood pH and showed a smaller (P < 0.05) decrease in blood pH and base excess than those fed the nonsupplemental diets. Baseline plasma FFA concentrations were higher (P < 0.01) in pigs fed the 5% fat diet. After the handling procedure, blood glucose, lactate, and plasma FFA were higher (P < 0.05) in pigs fed the 5 vs. 0% fat diets, but blood pH, bicarbonate, and base excess were not affected by dietary fat. The handling procedure decreased (P < 0.01) blood pH, bicarbonate, base excess, and total carbon dioxide and increased (P < 0.01) blood lactate, partial pressure of oxygen, and glucose, and also increased (P < 0.01) rectal temperature. Free fatty acid concentrations were increased by handling in pigs fed both 0 and 5% fat and 150 ppm L-carnitine. In conclusion, dietary L-carnitine supplementation at the level and for the feeding period evaluated in the current study had a relatively small but positive effect on decreasing blood pH changes in finishing pigs submitted to handling stress; however, dietary fat supplementation had little effect on blood acid-base balance.
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.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.