Recent attention to the topic of the possible certification of evaluators highlights several of the central problems facing the field. Controversies exist regarding the purposes and methods of evaluation. Indeed, there is no generally accepted definition of the term evaluation. Such problems would make it very difficult to formulate criteria for certification, if that step is taken eventually. Some plausible procedures are described for classifying different approaches to evaluation, and for subsequent elaboration in terms of philosophical foundations, theory, definitions, purposes, methodology, and ethical guidelines for each major category or cluster of categories. Such work could act as the foundation for subsequent efforts on certification and, in any case, would be enlightening about the current state and potential future directions of evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altschuld, J. (1999). The case for a voluntary system for credentialing evaluators. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 507-517.
2.
American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators. (1994). Guiding principles for evaluators. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Bickman, L. (1997). Evaluating evaluation: Where do we go from here?Evaluation Practice, 18(1), 1-16.
4.
Bickman, L. (1999). AEA, bold or timid?The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 519-520.
5.
Chen, H. (1994). Current trends and future directions in program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 229-238.
6.
Chen, H. (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 121-130.
7.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
8.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Tracks toward a postmodern politics of evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 299-309.
9.
Mark, M. M. (1999). From the editor. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), vii-viii.
10.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (1999). Toward an integrative framework for evaluation practice. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 177-198.
11.
Nee, D., & Mojica, M. I. (1999). Ethical challenges in evaluation with communities: A manager’s perspective. In J. L. Fitzpatrick & M. Morris (Eds.), Current and emerging ethical challenges in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 82 (pp. 35-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Newman, D. L. (1995). The future of ethics in evaluation: Developing the dialogue. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66 (pp. 99-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311-319.
14.
Patton, M. Q. (1996). A world larger than formative and summative. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 131-144.
15.
Reichardt, C. S. (1994). Summative evaluation, formative evaluation, and tactical research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 275-281.
16.
Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 58 (pp. 1-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.
18.
Scriven, M. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps. New Directions for Evaluation, 68 (pp. 49-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 151-161.
20.
Scriven, M. (1997). Empowerment evaluation examined. Evaluation Practice, 18(2), 165-175.
21.
Scriven, M. (1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. The American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 57-70.
22.
Sechrest, L. (1994). Program evaluation: Oh what it seemed to be!Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 359-365.
23.
Sechrest, L. (1997). Review of the bookEmpowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Environment and Behavior, 29(3), 422-426.
24.
Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good evaluation?Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 347-358.
25.
Shadish, W. R. (1998). Evaluation theory is who we are. The American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 1-19.
26.
Shadish, W. R., Newman, D. L., Scheirer, M. A., & Wye, C. (1995). Developing the guiding principles. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66 (pp. 3-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Smith, M. F. (1994). Evaluation: Review of the past, preview of the future. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 215-227.
28.
Smith, M. F. (1999). Should AEA begin a process for restricting membership in the profession of evaluation?The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 521-531.
29.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 321-338.
30.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (1999). Ethical dimensions of stakeholder participation and evaluation use. In J. L. Fitzpatrick & M. Morris (Eds.), Current and emerging ethical challenges in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 82 (pp. 57-66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1-16.
32.
Worthen, B. R. (1999). Critical challenges confronting certification of evaluators. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 533-555.
