Professional evaluation is a market-based activity in which economic considerations play a dominant role. But are there ever professional reasons for turning down an evaluation contract? Considering how evaluations can promote either guild maintenance interests or societal improvement interests illuminates several dilemmas in the proper conduct of evaluation and suggests the need for greater explicit attention to what it means for the evaluation profession to contribute to the public interest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Brickell, H. M. (1978). The influence of external political factors on the role and methodology of evaluation. In T. D. Cook, M. L. Del Rosario, K. M. Hennigan, M. M. Mark, & W. M. K. Trochim (eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Cousins, J. B. & Earl, L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. London, Falmer.
4.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). Taking a second look: Educational connoisseurship revisited. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century. (pp. 169-187). Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
5.
EVALTALK (February 14-26, 1997). American Evaluation Association Discussion List. [On-Line]. Available: LISTSERV@UAIVM.UA.EDU
6.
Facione, P. A., Scherer, D., & Attig, T. (1978). Values and society: An introduction to ethics and social philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
Fetterman, D. M. (1995). Empowerment evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Greene, J. C. (1997). Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Practice, 18(1), 25-35.
9.
Hennessy, K. D. (1997). Neglecting our common—and the public—interest. American Psychologist, 52(3), 272-273.
10.
House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
House, E. R. (1997, March). [Discussant Comments]. In R. E. Stake (Chair), Grounds for turning down a handsome evaluation contract. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (Cassette Recording No. RA7-40.34). Chicago, IL: Teach’em.
12.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Joint Committee, on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Lagemann, E. C. (1997). Contested terrain: A history of education research in the United States, 1890-1990. Educational Researcher, 26,(9), 5-17.
15.
Mabry, L. (I 997, March). Ethical landmines in program evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Chair), Grounds for turning down a handsome evaluation contract. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
16.
Morell, J. A. & Flaherty, E. W. (1978). The development of evaluation as a profession: Current status and some predictions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1, 11-17.
17.
Proposal guidelines for financial ventures sponsored by the American Evaluation Association. (1997, Winter). Evaluation Practice News, 5-6.
18.
Random House (1967). The Random House dictionary of the English language. New York, Random House.
19.
Rice, C. E. (1997). The scientist—practitioner split and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1173-1181.
20.
Rog, D. J. (1997, March). When NOT to do an outcome evaluation: Assessing the evaluability of a program. In R. E. Stake (Chair), Grounds for turning down u handsome evaluation contract Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
21.
Rossi, P. H. (1995). Doing good and getting it right. In W. R. Shadishet al. (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (pp. 55-59). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
22.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). The landscape of values in evaluation: Charted terrain and unexplored territory. In D. J. Rog & D. Foumier (Eds.), Progress and future directions in evaluation: Perspectives on theory, practice, and methods (pp. 25-39). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
23.
Shadish, W. R., Newman, D. L., Scheirer, M. A., & Wye, C. (Eds.). (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
24.
Smith, N. L. (1982). Evaluation design as preserving valued qualities in evaluation studies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 7, 229-237.
25.
Stake, R. E. (1986). Quieting reform: Social science and social action in an urban youth program. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
26.
Stake, R. E. (1997, March). Response to 6 papers on when to turn down a handsome evaluation prospect. In R. E. Stake (Chair), Grounds for turning down a handsome evaluation contract. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
