The argument advanced in this article is that advocacy in evaluation is inevitable. This is so when advocacy is understood not as program partisanship or contaminating bias, but rather as a value commitment to a particular regulative ideal (of rational decision making, interpretive meaning, community activism). The regulative ideal for evaluation advanced in this discussion is a commitment to democratic pluralism. These ideas are illustrated and substantiated with three case examples.
The question is not whether we should take sides, since we inevitably will, but rather whose side are we on? (Becker, 1967, p. 239).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems , 14, 239-248.
2.
Berk, R.A., & Rossi, P.H. (1976). Doing good or worse: Evaluation research politically re-examined. Social Problems, 23, 337-349.
3.
Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
4.
Campbell, D.T. (1971). Methods for the experimenting society. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
5.
Cook, T.D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy (Pp. 21-62). Beverly Hills: Sage.
6.
Fetterman, D. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-15.
Hahn, A.J., Greene, J.C., & Waterman, C. (1994). Educating about public issues. Final report from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Cluster Evaluation of Public Policy Education Programs. Media Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
9.
Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15-22.
10.
House, E.R. (1990). Methodology and justice. In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.), Evaluation and social justice: Issues in public education. New Directionsfor Program Evaluation no. 45 (Pp. 23-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
House, E.R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
MacDonald, B. (1978). Democracy and evaluation. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
13.
Mathison, S. (in press). Evaluation as a democratizing force in schools. International Journal of Social Education.
14.
Patton, M.Q. (1996). Utilization-focused evaluation, new century edition . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Phillips, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16.
Pursley, L.A. (1996). Empowerment and utilization through participatory evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Human Service Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
17.
Reiben, C.C. (1996). Participatory evaluation of development assistance: Dealing with power and facilitative learning. Evaluation, 2, 151-171.
18.
Schwandt, T.A. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 11-16; 34.
19.
Schwandt, T.A. (1992). Better living through evaluation? Images of progress shaping evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 13(2), 135-144.
20.
Schwandt, T.A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
21.
Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Smith, J.K. (1990). Goodness criteria: Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (Pp. 167-187). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Stake, R.E. (November 1995). Advocacy in evaluation: A necessary evil ? Panel presentation at the first International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, British Colombia.
25.
VanderPlaat, M. (1995). Beyond technique: Issues in evaluating for empowerment . Evaluation, 1, 81-96.
26.
Weiss, C.H. (1991). Evaluation research in the political context: Sixteen years and four administrations later. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (Pp. 211-231). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Weiss, H., & Greene, J.C. (1992). An empowerment partnership for family support and education programs and evaluations. Family Science Review , 5, 131-148.
28.
Whitmore, E., & Kerans, P. (1988). Participation, empowerment, and welfare. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 22, 51-60.
29.
Wolcott, H.F. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (Pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.
