|
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EVALUATION CONTRIBUTION CATEGORIES
Currently, there are ten sections to which authors may contribute
material for consideration for publication in the American Journal of
Evaluation (AJE). Specifications for these categories, in terms of content
and page length, are presented below. ARTICLES Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Articles may focus on evaluation methods, theory, practice, or findings. In all cases, implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include, but are not limited to, reviews of new developments in evaluation, descriptions of a current evaluation study, critical reviews of some area of evaluation practice, and presentations of important new techniques. Manuscripts should follow APA format for references and style. Length per se is not a criterion in evaluating submissions. FORUM Forum contributions present essays, opinions, and professional judgments. Forum articles speak to and about the philosophical, ethical, and practical dilemmas of our profession. By design the “Forum” is open to diverse views, in the hope that such diversity will enhance professional dialogue. Standard citations and reference lists should be used to acknowledge and identify earlier contributions and viewpoints. Manuscripts should typically not exceed 15 double-spaced typewritten pages in length unless the paper is invited by the editor. ETHICAL CHALLENGES All evaluators face the challenge of striving to adhere to the highest possible standards of ethical conduct. Translating the AEA’s Guiding Principles and the Joint Committee’s Program Evaluation Standards into everyday practice, however, can be a complex, uncertain, and frustrating endeavor. Moreover, acting in an ethical fashion can require considerable risk-taking on the evaluator’s part. In the Ethical Challenges column, commentators share their views of how evaluators might respond to specific problematic situations, linking their analyses to the principles and standards they believe are most relevant to the case. Not surprisingly, the perspectives that commentators offer are not always in agreement. When this occurs, reflection on the nature and sources of these differences of opinion can enhance our sensitivity to the ethical dimensions of our evaluation work, and our awareness of the options available for addressing them. Readers
who wish to submit cases to Ethical Challenges, or serve as commentators,
should contact section editor, Leslie Cooksy, University of California -
Davis EXEMPLARS This section presents interviews with evaluators whose work can illustrate, in a specific evaluation study, the application of different models, theories, and principles described in evaluation literature. These interviews should also exemplify the choices that evaluators make in the course of planning and conducting an evaluation. Entries in this section will begin with a brief description of the evaluation to provide a foundation for the interview. The focus will be on the dialogue between the section editor and the evaluator to learn more about the choices made, the models followed, the constraints and opportunities that emerged as the study progressed, and the evaluator’s assessment of the study itself. The section editor will provide commentary as needed to point out important attributes of the evaluation itself and to highlight connections between the evaluator’s comments and relevant literature or issues in the field of evaluation. Please send any suggestions about evaluators/evaluations that might be the subject of this column to the section editor, Christina Christie, Claremont Graduate University, via e-mail tina.christie@cgu.edu or phone: 909-607-9020 EVALUATING EVALUATIONS This section is designed to help improve evaluation practice by having competent evaluators critique and comment on previously completed evaluation studies—the “meta-evaluands.” Abbreviated summaries of prior evaluations will be published here (along with references to fuller reports of the studies), and “meta-evaluators” will be asked to critique the studies, using wherever possible the existing standards and guidelines published by AEA (the “guiding principles”) and the Joint Committee (the “evaluation standards”), in order to help other evaluators see how these touchstones of competent and ethical evaluation practice apply to actual studies. Contributors can submit their own evaluation studies to serve as the meta-evaluands or may volunteer the work of a colleague to be reported and critiqued (please provide the address, email, and telephone number of that colleague and, preferably, their statement of agreement for their study to be published). Those who wish to submit material for this section may also wish to read pp. vii-viii of the “From the Editor” section of issue 19(3) of this journal for additional information. TEACHING EVALUATION This
section includes articles that focus on teaching of and training in
evaluation. Articles may address evaluation teaching and training in
diverse environments, including K-12, corporate, government, non-profit,
or community settings, in addition to more traditional academic settings.
Articles might also identify strategies and outcomes of teaching
evaluation to community and agency members. A variety of formats are
welcome, including case studies, interviews, and more traditional
articles. Research on the teaching of evaluation is especially welcome. In
general, manuscripts for this section should range from 5 to 20 pages in
length, although shorter or longer papers will be considered. All
manuscripts will be peer-reviewed, with as timely a review process as we
can achieve. If you have any questions or suggestions about topics you would like to see addressed in this section, or would like to chat about an idea you are considering for submission, feel free to contact section editor, Marvin Alkin, UCLA, via e-mail at alkin@gseis.ucla.edu. THE HISTORICAL RECORD Papers in this section focus on evaluation from an historical perspective. They may analyze important turning points within the profession, provide commentary on historically significant evaluation works, or describe and analyze what promises to be a contemporary watershed event with important implications for the future of evaluation. If you have any questions or suggestions about topics you would like to see addressed in this section, or would like to chat about an idea you are considering for submission, please contact the section editor, John Gargani, UC Berkley, e-mail: jgargani@berkeley.edu. DIALOG This section, as its name implies, is designed to foster dialog in the evaluation community. Various formats are appropriate for this section. First, a pair of outstanding evaluators or evaluation scholars may be invited to discuss some topic of general interest. In most cases, the two will be selected in part because they are expected to have differing viewpoints and because their discussion should be illuminating for readers. Second, panel discussions may be presented on some topic of general interest, using an interactive or question-answer format. Third, this section may sometimes include responses and commentary on a recent article published in AJE. Any such response should be concise, to the point, substantive, and devoid of personal attacks. Other formats for Dialog will also be considered. Prospective contributors are encouraged to contact the Editor. METHOD NOTES This section includes shorter (e.g., 10–15 double-spaced manuscript pages or less) papers describing methods and techniques that can improve evaluation practice. Method notes may include reports of new evaluation tools, products, and/or services that are useful for practicing evaluators. Alternatively, they may describe new uses of existing tools. Also appropriate for this section are user-friendly guidelines for the proper use of conventional tools and methods, particularly for those that are commonly misused in practice. BOOK REVIEWS In
this section, recent books applicable to the broad field of program
evaluation are reviewed. In most cases, a single book will be considered
in a review, but in some instances multiple books may be jointly reviewed
to illuminate similarities and differences in intent, philosophy, and
usefulness. In most cases, a single review will be commissioned for each
book. Two or more reviews may be commissioned for books judged by the
Editor and/or Book Review
Editor to be especially noteworthy works in evaluation. Persons
with suggestions of books to be reviewed, or those who wish to submit a
review, should contact section editor, Lori Wingate, Western Michigan
University, e-mail lori.wingate@wmich.edu,
or phone: 269-387-5913. |