Values Engagement in Evaluation

Abstract

Values-engagement in evaluation involves both describing stakeholder values and prescribing certain values. Describing stakeholder values is common practice in responsive evaluation traditions. Prescribing or advocating particular values is only explicitly part of democratic, culturally responsive, critical, and other openly ideological traditions in evaluation, but we argue that it is implicit in all evaluation approaches and practices. In this article, we discuss various conceptualizations of values-engagement in evaluation. We further present a specific form of values-engaged evaluation that is committed to descriptive and prescriptive valuing, with an emphasis on its prescriptive advancement of the values of inclusion and equity. Examples from field experience illustrate these two countenances and underscore the multiple challenges invoked by intentional engagement with the values dimensions of evaluation. The examples come from evaluations of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educational programs.

Keywords

values-engagement responsive evaluation democratic evaluation prescriptive valuing STEM educational evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alkin

M. C.

(Ed.) (2004). Evaluation roots. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Amba

(2006). The practice of politics of responsive evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 31–43.

Chelimsky

(1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 35–55.

Christie

C. A.

Alkin

M. C.

(2008). Evaluation theory tree re-examined. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 131–135.

Everitt

(1996). Developing a critical evaluation. Evaluation, 2, 173–188.

Freeman

(Ed.). (2010). Critical social theory and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 127, 1–6.

Greene

J. C.

(1997). Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Practice, 18, 25–35.

Greene

J. C.

(2005). A Value-Engaged Approach for Evaluating the Bunche-Da Vinci Learning Academy. New Directions for Evaluation, 106, 27–45.

Greene

J. C.

DeStefano

Burgon

Hall

(2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 53–71.

10.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Sage.

11.

House

E. R.

(1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

House

E. R.

Howe

K. R.

(1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Kushner

(2000). Personalizing evaluation. London, England: Sage.

14.

Mabry

(2010). Critical social theory evaluation: Slaying the dragon. New Directions for Evaluation, 127, 83–98.

15.

MacDonald

(1976). Evaluation and the control of education. In Tawney

(Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications (pp. 125–136). London, England: MacMillan Education.

16.

MacDonald

(1977). The portrayal of persons as evaluation data. In Nigel

(Ed.), Safari: Theory in practice (pp. 50–67). Norwich, England: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.

17.

MacDonald

(1978). Evaluation and democracy. Public address at the University of Alberta Faculty of Education, Edmonton, Canada.

18.

Mertens

D. M.

(1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 1–14.

19.

Rawls

(1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Renger

Bourdeau

(2004). Strategies for values inquiry: an exploratory case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 39–49.

21.

Schwandt

(1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Schwandt

(2008). Educating for intelligent belief in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 139–150.

23.

Scriven

(2003). Evaluation in the new millennium: The transdisciplinary vision. In Donaldson

S. I.

Scriven

(Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems Visions for the New Millennium (pp. 19–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Leviton

L. C.

(1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

25.

Stake

R. E.

(2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml