Social justice evaluation approaches advance antioppressive and culturally responsive methods to mitigate societal inequalities. However, social justice efforts will fall short if they focus solely on one side of inequality: oppression. Accordingly, this article argues that the other side of inequality—privilege—needs to be scrutinized. This article offers standpoint theories as a lens on privilege to reveal how the knowledge achieved from marginalized groups can be useful to make privilege more visible and enhance the objectivity of inquiry. In addition, a concept inspired by standpoint theories, privilege-cognizant scripts, is offered to help evaluators rethink and discover the privilege carried by the field of evaluation and our individual identities. Standpoint theories awaken evaluators to the idea that although privilege can have negative consequences for evaluation practice, it can also be used productively to advance social justice.
AbmaT. (1997). Sharing power, facing ambiguity. In MabryL. (Ed.), Evaluation and the postmodern dilemma (pp. 105–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2.
American Evaluation Association. (2011). Statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Retrieved fromwww.eval.org/ccstatement.asp
3.
BaileyA. (1998). Locating traitorous identities: Toward a view of privilege-cognizant white character. Hypatia, 13, 27–42.
4.
BradenA. (1958). The wall between. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
5.
CoffmanJ. (2003/2004). Ask the expert: Michael Scriven on the differences between evaluation and social science research. The Evaluation Exchange, 9(4).
6.
CollinsP. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, 14–32.
7.
CooksonP.PersellC. (1991). Race and class in America’s elite preparatory boarding schools: African Americans as the “Outsiders Within.”The Journal of Negro Education, 60, 219–228.
8.
DonaldsonS.GoolerL. E.ScrivenM. (2002). Strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 261–273.
9.
Du BoisW. E. B. (1994). The souls of black folk. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1903)
10.
DugganC.BushK. (2014). The ethical tipping points of evaluators in conflict zones. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 485–506.
11.
EdwardsK. (2006) Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual model. NASPA Journal, 43, 39–60.
12.
FordK.OrlandellaJ. (2015). The “not-so-final remark”: The journey to becoming White allies. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1, 287–301.
13.
GatesE. F. (2018). Toward valuing with critical systems heuristics. American Journal of Evaluation, 39, 201–220. doi:10.1177/1098214017703703
14.
GreeneJ. (2016). Advancing equity: Cultivating an evaluation habit. In DonaldsonS.PicciottoR. (Eds.), Evaluation for an equitable society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
15.
GreeneJ. C.DeStefanoL.BurgonH.HallJ. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 53–71. doi:10.1002/ev.178
16.
HallJ. N.AhnJ.GreeneJ. C. (2012). Values engagement in evaluation: Ideas, illustrations, and implications. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 195–207. doi:10.1177/1098214011422592
17.
HardingS. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18.
HardingS. (1995). “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104, 331–349.
19.
HoodS.HopsonR.FriersonH. (Eds.). (2015). Continuing the journey to reposition culture and cultural context in evaluation theory and practice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
20.
HouseE. R. (2017). Evaluation and the framing of race. American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 167–189.
21.
IntemannK. (2010). 25 Years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now?Hypatia, 25, 778–796.
22.
IsraelT. (2012). 2011 Society of counseling psychology presidential address: Exploring privilege in counseling psychology: Shifting the lens. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 158–180.
23.
JohnsonJ.HallJ.GreeneJ. C.AhnJ. (2013). Exploring alternative approaches for presenting evaluation results. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 486–503. doi:10.1177/1098214013492995
24.
Johnson-BaileyJ. (2004). Enjoining positionality and power in narrative work: Balancing contentious and modulating forces. In deMarraisK.LapanS. (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
KirkhartK. E. (2010). Eyes on the prize: Multicultural validity and evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 400–413.
26.
KirkhartK. E. (2015). Unpacking the evaluator’s toolbox: Observations on evaluation, privilege, equity and justice. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Keynote Presentation. Annual Conference of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), Te Papa, Wellington, July 7–10, 2014.
27.
KirkhartK. E. (2016). Equity, privilege, and validity: Traveling companions or strange bedfellows? In DonaldsonS.PicciottoR. (Eds.), Evaluation for an equitable society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
28.
MadisonA. (1992). Primary inclusion of culturally diverse minority program participants in the evaluation process. In MadisonA. M. (Ed.), Minority issues in program evaluation: New Directions for Program evaluation (Vol. 53, pp. 35–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
MertensD. (2001). Transformative considerations: Inclusion and social justice. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 86–90.
30.
MertensD.WilsonA. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
31.
PattonM. Q. (1990). The challenge of being a profession. Evaluation Practice, 11, 45–51.
32.
PeaseB. (2010). Undoing privilege: Unearned advantage in a divided world. New York, NY: Zed Books.
33.
PicciottoR. (2011). The logic of evaluation professionalism. Evaluation, 17, 165–180.
34.
RogersM. F.HooverK. M. (2010). Outsiders/within and in/outsiders: Varieties of multiculturalism. Journal of Educational Controversy, 5(2), Article 5.
35.
SchwandtT. (2015). Evaluation foundations revisited. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition of Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144), Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty. Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csc.asp
37.
van DraanenJ. (2017). Introducing reflexivity to evaluation practice: An in-depth case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 360–375. doi:10.1177/1098214016668401
38.
YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
ZhouX.HallJ. N. (2018). Mixed methods papers in first-person and third-person: Writing voices in dialogue. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12, 344–357. doi:10.1177/1558689816652755
