A collaborative partnership is developing a values-based indicator framework for use by civil society organizations (CSOs). A key sub-study on the relevance and usability of such indicators was carried out through an action research process with a CSO and it was found that: 1) it was, indeed, possible to develop useful and relevant indicators for the presence of CSO values; 2) it was not useful to tie each indicator to only one value; 3) the indicators were more ‘universal’ than the values for which they had been derived; 4) these indicators were not considered valid by the user CSO without being ‘localized’; 5) the use of our values-based framework caused substantive transformational learning within this CSO. The importance of these findings to studies on values and to design issues central to formal values-based measurement work, such as face validity and catalytic validity, is drawn out. The principles of emancipatory action research used are shown to be key to the results, which themselves form foundational elements that led to key and significant understandings and modifications of the values-based framework.
AllportG. W.VernonP. E.LindzeyG. (1951) Study of values (rev. ed. [Test booklets with manual]), Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
ArnoldH. J.FeldmanD. C. (1981) Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 377–385.
3.
Burford, G., Velasco, I., Janouskova, S., Zahradnik, M., Hak, T., Podger, D., Piggot, G., & Harder, M. K. (2013a). Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects. Evaluation and Program Planning, 36(1), 1--14. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.04.005.
4.
Burford, G., Kissmann, S., Rosado-May, F. J., Alvarado Dzul, S. H., & Harder, M. K. (2013b). Indigenous participation in intercultural education: learning from Mexico and Tanzania. Ecology and Society, in press.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007) Research methods in education, 6th ed. New York: Routledge.
7.
EbrahimA. (2002) Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1): 84–114.
8.
ESDinds (2011). The development of indicators and assessment tools for CSO projects promoting values-based education for sustainable development. Deliverable No. 17: Project Final Report (amended version, resubmitted 23 September 2011). Available via Resources page: http://www.esdinds.eu/resources (accessed on 7 November 2012).
9.
ESDinds (2012). The development of indicators and assessment tools for CSO projects promoting values-based education for sustainable development. Final indicator list. Available via Resources page: http://www.esdinds.eu/resources (accessed on 7 November 2012).
10.
FettermanD. M.WandersmanA. (2005) Empowerment evaluation principles in practice, New York: Guilford Publications.
11.
FurnhamA. (1986) Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3): 385–400.
12.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.
13.
HitlinS.PiliavinJ. A. (2004) Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 359–393.
14.
JettenJ.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. R. (1996) Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6): 1222–1233.
15.
KemmisS.(2001) Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In: ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, London: SAGE, pp. 91–103.
16.
LatherP. (1986) Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3): 257–278.
17.
MeglinoB. M.RavlinE. C. (1998) Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3): 351–389.
18.
MessickS.(1989) Validity. In: LinnR. L. (ed.) Educational measurement, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, pp. 13–103.
19.
MichaelsonJ.AbdallahS.SteuerN.ThompsonS.MarksN. (2009) National accounts of well-being: Bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet, London: nef (the new economics foundation).
20.
Mustakova-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 245–269.
21.
PattonM. Q. (1997) Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context. Evaluation Practice, 18(2): 147–163.
22.
Podger, D., Piggot, G., Zahradnik, M., Janouskova, S., Velasco, I., Hak, T., … Harder, M. K. (2010). The Earth Charter and the ESDinds initiative: developing indicators and assessment tools for civil society organisations to examine the values dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 4(2), 297--305.
23.
RokeachM. (1973) The nature of human values, New York: The Free Press.
24.
SchwartzS. H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues, 50(4): 19–45.
25.
SchwartzS. H.MelechG.LehmannA.BurgessS.HarrisM.OwensV. (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5): 519–542.
26.
SprangerE.PigorsP. J. W. (1928) Types of men: The psychology and ethics of personality, Halle: M. Niemeyer.
27.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
28.
TaylorS. J.BogdanR. (1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
29.
UNESCO (2007) Asia-Pacific Guidelines for the Development of National ESD Indicators, Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.
30.
WilliamsR. M.Jr(1968) Values. In: SillsE. (ed.) International encyclopedia of the social sciences, New York: Macmillan, pp. 283–287.
