There has yet to be consensus within the field on whose and what criteria, or values, should be used to judge program worth. Furthermore, evaluators continue to grapple with decisions about which stakeholder values are to be included in evaluation, and if evaluators should be advocating or prescribing certain values or not. This introduction very briefly highlights the discourse associated with valuing in evaluation and summarizes the four articles in the Values in Evaluation Praxis section.
AlkinM. C.VoA. T.ChristieC. A. (2012). The evaluator’s role in valuing: Who and with whom. In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation (Issue No. 133, pp. 29–41). Jossey-Bass.
2.
BoyceA. S. (2017). Lessons learned using a values-engaged approach to attend to culture, diversity, and equity in a STEM program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 33–43.
3.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath.
4.
FreemanM.HallJ. N. (2012). The complexity of practice: Participant observation and values engagement in a responsive evaluation of a professional development school partnership. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(4), 483–495.
5.
GanlyT. (2018). Taking time to pause: Engaging with a gift of reflective practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(6), 713–723.
6.
GreeneJ. C.DeStefanoL.BurgonH.HallJ. N. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. In HuffmanD.LawrenzF. (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Issue No. 109, pp. 53–71). Jossey-Bass.
7.
HallJ. N.AhnJ.GreeneJ. C. (2012). Values engagement in evaluation: Ideas, illustrations, and implications. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(2), 195–207.
8.
HouseE.HoweK. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. SAGE.
9.
JulnesG. (2012). Managing valuation. In JulnesG. (Ed.) Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Issue No. 133, pp. 3–15). Jossey-Bass.
10.
MabryL. (2010). Critical social theory evaluation: Slaying the dragon. In FreemanM. (Ed.), Critical social theory and evaluation practice. New directions for evaluation (Issue No. 127, pp. 83–98). Jossey-Bass.
11.
MathiesonL. (2016). Synergies in critical reflective practice and science: Science as reflection and reflection as science. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(2), 4.
12.
MorrisM. (2012). Valuation and the American Evaluation Association: Helping 100 flowers bloom, or at least be understood? In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Issue No. 133, pp. 85–90). Jossey-Bass.
13.
SchwandtT. A. (2015). Reconstructing professional ethics and responsibility: Implications of critical systems thinking. Evaluation, 21, 462–466.
14.
ScrivenM. (1980). The logic of evaluation. EdgePress.
15.
ScrivenM. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. SAGE.
16.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundation of program evaluation theories and practice. SAGE.
17.
YatesB. T. (2012). Step arounds for common pitfalls when valuing resources used versus resources produced. In JulnesG. (Ed.), Promoting valuation in the public interest: Informing policies for judging value in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation (Issue No. 133, pp. 43–52). Jossey-Bass.
