|
Session Title: Evaluation Theories Grounded in Social Justice
|
|
Panel Session 636 to be held in Sebastian Section L4 on Friday, Nov 13, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Theories of Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Donna Mertens, Gallaudet University, donna.mertens@gallaudet.edu
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Marvin Alkin, University of California Los Angeles, alkin@gseis.ucla.edu
|
| Abstract:
Alkin's Evaluation Theory Tree provides a graphic depiction of the diverse theories that contribute to our understanding of theoretical groundings in evaluation. His tree has received both praise and criticism: Praise because it captures the US version of theory up to a point; criticized because its original form primarily reflected the white, male roots of evaluation theory. Alkin subsequently revised the tree to be more inclusive of theories related to social justice. This panel will provide additional possibilities for inclusion in the theoretical tree by examining theoretical frameworks that grounded in social justice and hence promote a salient aspect of ethics to evaluation theory. The panel presentations will include Mertens' transformative paradigm and its commensurate theories, Critical Theory and implications for furthering social justice (Thomas), Indigenous Theory and implications for social justice in the Maori community (Cram), and theory-based evaluations in marginalized communities (Bledsoe). Marv Alkin will serve as discussant.
|
|
Evaluation Theories Grounded in Social Justice: A Transformative View
|
| Donna Mertens, Gallaudet University, donna.mertens@gallaudet.edu
|
|
The transformative paradigm is a metaphysical framework that is defined by a set of basic belief systems that prioritize the promotion of social justice and the furtherance of human rights. Theoretical frameworks that are commensurate with the transformative paradigm include feminist theories, critical race theory, disability theory, queer theory, and indigenous theories. This presentation will focus on the underlying beliefs of the transformative paradigm and how they support the use of theoretical perspectives that are grounded in social justice for evaluation. This presentation will provide an overall framework in which to situate the presentations that follow. Mertens brings a lengthy history of work in marginalized communities that is evidenced in her scholarly work related to the transformative paradigm: Transformative Research and Evaluation (Mertens, 2009) and the book she co-edited with Pauline Ginsberg (Handbook of Social Research Ethics (2009).
|
|
|
Grounding Evaluation Theories in Social Justice: A Critical Theory View - Defining Moments
|
| Veronica Thomas, Howard University, vthomas@howard.edu
|
|
"Defining moments" are those critical periods that penetrate our consciousness and provide us with the opportunity to change our filter and look at things differently. As evaluators we are confronted with an ongoing series of "defining moments" of choices and decisions. It is during these periods that we have an opportunity to define and redefine our ethical responsibilities in dealing with issues such as racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression; the hierarchical relationship between evaluators and stakeholders; considerations of what counts as "knowledge"; and strategies for advancing equity and social justice through evaluative practice. This presentation will discuss Critical Theory (CT) as part of a larger transformative paradigm that can guide evaluators through those "defining moments" and offer a framework for ethical decision-making that better identifies interests, harms, and benefits, with specific examples illustrative of how evaluators can promote equity, democracy, and social justice.
| |
|
Grounding Evaluation Theories in Social Justice: An Indigenous View
|
| Fiona Cram, Katoa Ltd, fionac@katoa.net.nz
|
|
For the past nine years in Aotearoa New Zealand, the policy context for evaluation has stressed the importance of social inclusion to reduce inequalities and create a more just society. Evaluators of government-funded programs should have, on first glance, been delighted to have been part of this agenda. However, tensions between 'inside' and 'outside' ethics exist. 'Inside' ethics ensures that all stakeholders are treated with respect - a crucial perspective for Maori (indigenous) evaluators because the production of knowledge within Maori society is performative; i.e., the way knowledge is gathered is as important as the knowledge itself. 'Outside' ethics is about being politically astute, knowing that Maori are often marginalised by policies bearing social justice labels. Maori evaluators face this challenge: How to critique a social justice 'look' that is unjust for Maori while maintaining credibility as an evaluator in the eyes of both the government and the community?
| |
|
Grounding Evaluation Theories in Social Justice: A Community-Based View
|
| Katrina Bledsoe, Walter R McDonald and Associates Inc, katrina.bledsoe@gmail.com
|
|
The dynamic demographics of communities make it imperative to understand how to conduct evaluations that are sensitive to the context of participants situated in community-based settings. This understanding is especially important in working with communities with hard to reach populations (e.g., marginalized groups), and where evaluations, if not tailored to communities' context, can easily overlook the mores of its members and violate the rights of participants. The presentation will examine theoretical perspectives that facilitate the examination of issues that might arise in evaluative settings between evaluators and key stakeholders that impact the development and execution of ethical and "contextually competent" evaluations (e.g., power dynamics; institutional structures that intentionally or unintentionally promote the "isms"). The presenter discusses these concerns within the context of a social justice framework addressing theoretical issues, as well as ethics; methodology; translation of evaluation terminology; and using strategies to garner community involvement, buy-in, and trust.
| |