Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

Julnes, George

doi:10.1002/ev.20012

Cited by 28 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We tend to know—through reflective narratives and interviews, for instance—about the organizations or programs (the where ) in which these stakeholders’ work is situated, their activities (the what ), and the motivations and underlying logic for such activities (the why ) (Fitzpatrick, Christie, & Mark, ; Wharton & Alexander, ). Additionally, as members of a growing field, evaluators are beginning to address more explicitly and on a broader level issues about valuing; that is, the manner in which value, merit, worth, and significance are systematically attributed to a unit of interest in the real world (Alkin et al., ; Julnes, ; Scriven, ). However, there is a paucity of studies that offer empirically derived explanations for the observations already captured in the literature (the why ).…”

Section: Research On Context In Evaluation: a Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Research on Evaluation Through the Study of Context

Christie

2015

New Drctns Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of context in shaping evaluation practice is broadly accepted. Still, there is much to be learned about context, and we remain at the early stages of this process. In this chapter, we describe a framework for organizing and focusing ideas for conducting research on evaluation context. We hope that this tool will be a source of inspiration for future studies of context, thus contributing to a deeper and higher quality evaluation knowledge base.

show abstract

Section: Research On Context In Evaluation: a Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Research on Evaluation Through the Study of Context

Christie

2015

New Drctns Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, no claim is being made that efficiency is not a relevant public interest value, nor that it is always “wrong” to privilege efficiency. The claim is only that its privileging results in the diminution of other public interest values, and that this can be quite problematic in evaluating complex aspects of issues like sustainability (Julnes, ). Further, as the above quote from Pope Francis alludes, the temptation is strong to forgo “true statecraft” and instead use arguments for efficiency to justify privileging short‐term self‐interest over the long‐term common good.…”

Section: Evaluation In Support Of the Multifaceted Evolving Public Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, we acknowledge that we are likely never to craft a monolithic understanding of the public interest and that “each generation must take up the challenge anew, determining in what directions their development objectives lie…and what is their understanding of the requirement of social justice” (Kemp et al., , p. 2). This is not to say that we should stop trying to articulate a coherent understanding of the public interest; indeed, it is the unrelenting efforts to develop systematic representations that moves our understandings forward—put another way “ seek systemization, but distrust it ” (Julnes, , p. 129).…”

Section: Evaluation In Support Of the Multifaceted Evolving Public Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Transitions to Sustainability: Evaluation for Managing Processes in the Public Interest

Julnes

2019

New Drctns Evaluation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability as a goal is often a major consideration in policy debates and is becoming more so in the field of evaluation. This rising profile, however, creates challenges because the contexts where sustainability is evaluated can be complex in ways that standard evaluation is less equipped to address. After addressing conditions that add to this complexity, recommendations are made to counter three problems. First, with a traditional focus on support for achieving outcomes, evaluators have tended to neglect support for managing processes. Second, with the largely accepted goal of influencing selected outcomes, evaluators have tended to neglect influencing established systems and so have been less prepared to support managing transitions from unsustainable to sustainable practices. Third, judging the value of public initiatives involves assumptions that, when applied to sustainability, can result in overly narrow and biased understandings of the public interest.

show abstract

“…The contrast between this holistic, experiential approach with the more common criterial or analytic approach is most evident in Scriven's (1994) paper entitled "The Final Synthesis", presenting the criterial approach, and Stake's response to it, written with a group of his graduate students (Stake et al, 1997). These papers are cited in other literature as presenting two important perspectives on valuing, and particularly on the drawing of overall evaluative conclusions (Gates, 2017;House & Howe, 1999;Julnes, 2012aJulnes, , 2012b. Stake et al (1997) don't reject the view that evaluation is about judging the merit or worth of an evaluand, or that this culminates in a synthesis or overall evaluative conclusion.…”

Section: The Dominant Rhetoric: a Criterial Approach That Leads To Symentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We must recognize the diversity of contexts, both evaluation context and evaluator context, and not insist that all evaluators perform valuing in one (presumed) 'right ' way. (2012, p. 39) Others (e.g., Cronbach, 1982;Julnes, 2012a;Patton, 2012) also emphasise that context matters, and that decisions about how to go about valuing in an evaluation are context dependent. So what does that mean for evaluation practice?…”

Section: Implications For Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The overall evaluative conclusion as an element of evaluation practice

MacDonald¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The questions of who values, with whom, in what ways, and under what conditions concern all evaluators but are explicitly considered by some theorists more than others. Theorists placed on the valuing branch of Christie and Alkin’s (2013) evaluation theory tree emphasise valuing in their conceptualisation of evaluation, but even among these theorists there is diversity in the ways in which valuing is considered and realised in evaluation practice. This article explores this diversity within one aspect of valuing—the valuing involved in reaching a warranted conclusion about the overall merit, worth, or significance of an evaluand. It considers the extent to which the literature discusses overall evaluative conclusions as an element of evaluation practice; the extent to which drawing such conclusions is seen as the responsibility of the evaluator or stakeholders; and the methods that may be used to reach a warranted evaluative conclusion. The author concludes that there has been little empirical research undertaken on the valuing involved in reaching a warranted conclusion about the overall merit, worth, or significance of an evaluand. Much of the literature is evaluators theorising from different epistemological positions. Thus, while the literature does not definitively inform evaluators of whether they should always reach an overall evaluative conclusion, who they should involve, and what methods they should use, this review does support evaluators to reflect on these issues in their practice, and to make deliberate, informed decisions about the making—or not—of overall conclusions or judgements in future evaluations.

show abstract

Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Advancing Research on Evaluation Through the Study of Context

Advancing Research on Evaluation Through the Study of Context

Supporting Transitions to Sustainability: Evaluation for Managing Processes in the Public Interest

The overall evaluative conclusion as an element of evaluation practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About