roy

Philosophical and Ideological Differences Logical Positivism. Early evaluations emerged from the social sciences, in particular education and psychology, at a time when the dominant paradigm was positivism. Logical positivists, a more extreme branch of positivism, argued that knowledge was obtained entirely through experience, specifically through observation, and held rigid views concerning the world and data […]

Origins of Alternative Views of Evaluation The diversity of evaluation approaches has arisen from the varied backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews of their authors, which have resulted in diverse philosophical orientations, and methodological and practical preferences. These different predispositions have led the authors—and their adherents—to propose sometimes widely different methods for conducting evaluations and for collecting

Diverse Conceptions of Program Evaluation The many evaluation approaches that have emerged since 1960 range from com- prehensive models to checklists of actions to be taken. Some authors opt for a comprehensive approach to judging a program, while others view evaluation as a process of identifying and collecting information to assist decision makers. Still others

Alternative Approaches to Program Evaluation In Part One, we referred to the varying roles that evaluation studies can play in education, government, business, nonprofit agencies, and many related areas, and readers were introduced to some of the different purposes of evaluation. We hinted at some of the different approaches to evaluation, but we have not

What types of ethical violations do you think would occur most commonly in organizations with which you are familiar? Major Concepts and Theories 1. Good evaluation practice involves much more than methodological skills. Evalua- tors must have the skills to work well in a sometimes highly political environment, must be able to communicate well with

Ethics Beyond a Code of Ethics The evaluation standards and guidelines described earlier are, in our judgment, singularly useful in improving the practice of evaluation. We urge anyone aspir- ing to do high-quality evaluation to become intimately familiar with those stan- dards and guidelines and to apply them diligently. At the same time, mere adherence

Organizational Relationships of Evaluator to Client Evaluator Employed To Do One Evaluation or Successive Evaluations Evaluator Reports 1. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated 1. Successive evaluations 1. Directly to director of program evaluated 2. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated 2. One evaluation 2. Directly to

Interpersonal Relationships and Bias. It is apparent to even the casual observer that individuals’ feelings toward one another can color their judgments, not only about each other but about practically anything with which the other person is perceived to be associated. Hence, we have legal restrictions on testimony about one’s spouse and anti-nepotism policies that

Strategies for Reducing Bias. What can an evaluator do to minimize the bias that personal views and experience bring to an evaluation? One strategy recom- mended by qualitative researchers (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, Miles & Huberman, 1994; Schwandt & Halpern, 1989) is to maintain an “audit trail,” which Schwandt defines as “a systematically maintained documentation

Principle C.7 addresses expectations concerning financial disclosures: C.7 Evaluators should disclose all sources of financial support for an evaluation, and the source of the request for the evaluation (American Evaluation Association, 2004, Section C, Integrity/Honesty). Several standards also reveal critical expectations for the evaluation itself in regard to the nature of reporting information, the credibility