This article draws on the sociological literature to (i) explore the intersection between evaluation and professionalism; (ii) identify the extent to which evaluation fulfills the main attributes of professionalism; (iii) apply logical models of professionalism to the practice of independent and self-evaluation; and (iv) speculate about the future of the discipline. It rests the case for evaluation professionalism on the imperative of occupational self-management without which specialized evaluation knowledge is highly vulnerable to capture by vested interests.
Abbott A. ( 1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AEA (2004) Guiding principles for evaluators. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.eval.org/publications/aea06.GPBrochure.pdf
3.
Bickman L. and Reich S. ( 2005) Profession of evaluation. In: Mathison S (ed.) Encyclopedia of Evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 331-4.
4.
Chelimsksy E. and Shadish WR ( 1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
Cronbach LJ, et al. (1980) Towards Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Donaldson SI and Christie CA ( 2005) The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven: Determining causality in program evaluation and applied research: Should experimental evidence be the gold standard?JMDE Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation3. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jmde/content/JMDE%20Num%203_files/Webpages%20JMDE%20003/JMDE_003_Part_I.htm#_Toc116196689
7.
Freidson E. ( 1970) Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
8.
Freidson E. ( 1986) Professional Powers: A Study of the Professionalization of Formal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Freidson E. ( 1994) Professionalism Reborn : Theory, Prophecy and Policy . Cambridge: Polity Press.
10.
Freidson E. ( 2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
House ER ( 1993) Professional Evaluation: Social Impact and Political Consequences . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
12.
Jacob S. and Boisvert Y.(2010) To be or not to be a profession: pros, cons and challenges for evaluation . Evaluation16(4): 349-69.
13.
Johnson TJ ( 1972) Professions and Power. London : Macmillan.
14.
Leeuw F. and Vaessen J. ( 2009) Impact Evaluations and Development: NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation. Washington, DC: NONIE c/o Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank.
15.
Lincoln YS ( 1985) The ERS standards for program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning8(3): 251-3.
16.
MacDonald KM ( 1995) The Sociology of the Professions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
Merton R. ( 1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
18.
Millerson G. ( 1964) The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professionalization . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
19.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( 2010) Guidelines and Reference Series, Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. Paris: Development Assistance Committee. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf
20.
Patton MQ ( 1990) The challenge of being a profession. Evaluation Practice11(1): 45-51.
21.
Rossi PH, Lipsey MW and Freeman HE ( 2004) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
22.
Russ-Eft D., et al. (2008) Evaluator Competencies: Standards for the Practice of Evaluation in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Scriven M. ( 1991) Evaluation Thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
24.
Weber M. ( 1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley : University of California Press.
