Culturally and politically science is under attack. The core consequence of perceiving and asserting evaluation as science is that it enhances our credibility and effectiveness in supporting the importance of science in our world and brings us together with other scientists to make common cause in supporting and advocating for science. Other consequences include communicating our role more clearly and credibly to those who value science. Viewing evaluation as science may affect how we are viewed, treated, and positioned in academia, government, and by funders and users of evaluation. The ramifications of evaluation science for evaluation’s status as a profession, branch of applied social science, discipline, and transdiscipline are reviewed. The conclusion offers implications, caveats, and cautions regarding the identity and practice of evaluation science.
ChristieC. A.InkelasM.LemireS. (Eds.). (2017). Improvement science in evaluation: Methods and uses. New Directions for Evaluation, 153.
10.
ClarkW. C. (2007). Sustainability Science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, p. 1738.
11.
Cronbach, LJ. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
CronbachL. J., & Associates. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
DonaldsonS. I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
DonaldsonS. I. (2017). Evaluation science. AEA eStudy webinar, June 20.
15.
DruckerP. (1959). The landmarks of tomorrow. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
16.
DuffinJ. (2010). History of medicine (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
LinL.SpectorJ. M. (Eds.). (2017). The sciences of learning and instructional design: Constructive articulation between communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
MadausG. F.ScrivenM.StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (Vol. 6). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Springer.
ScrivenM. (1976). Reasoning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49.
ScrivenM. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
ScrivenM. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 58.
51.
ScrivenM. (2003, Winter). Differences between evaluation and social science research. The Evaluation Exchange, 9, 1.
52.
ScrivenM. (2004). Reflections. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp. 183–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
ScrivenM. (2008). The concept of a transdiscipline: And of evaluation as a transdiscipline. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 5, 65–66.
54.
ScrivenM. (2013). Conceptual resolutions and evaluation: Past, present, and future. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots (2nd ed., pp. 167–179). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
55.
ScrivenM. (2016). Roadblocks to recognition and revolution. American Journal of Evaluation, 37, 27–44.
56.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
57.
ShawI. F.GreeneJ. C.MarkM. M. (Eds.). (2006). The Sage handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
SpangenbergJ. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38, 275–287.
59.
SteinJ.UrdangL. (Eds.). (1966). The random house dictionary of the english language(unabridged ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
60.
StufflebeamD. L.CorynC. L. C. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61.
StufflebeamD. L.MadausG. F.Thomas KellaghanT. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
62.
ThomasW. I.ThomasD. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
