|
Session Title: Evaluating With Validity: Truth, Justice, and the Beautiful Way
|
|
Panel Session 229 to be held in Texas B on Thursday, Nov 11, 9:15 AM to 10:45 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Theories of Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| James Griffith, Claremont Graduate University, james.griffith@cgu.edu
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Ernest House, University of Colorado, ernie.house@colorado.edu
|
| Abstract:
In Evaluating with Validity (1980), House proposed three standards for evaluation: truth, justice, and beauty. He argued that, if one must choose between these standards, justice always comes first, then truth, and finally beauty. In discussing these standards, House draws both on contemporary social scientists and on philosophers contemporary and classic. Three evaluators with differing perspectives will consider how the contemporary historical context and current theoretical notions support or undermine House’s perspective.
|
|
Truth, Beauty, and Justice: Conceptualizing House’s Framework for Evaluation in Community-based Settings
|
| Katrina Bledsoe, Walter R McDonald and Associates Inc, katrina.bledsoe@gmail.com
|
|
House’s theoretical framework of beauty, truth, and justice in evaluation continues to inspire the field. Yet, while one might agree with House that if a choice must be made between these three standards, that justice must always comes first, then truth, then beauty, that trade-off might not necessarily need to be made. I contend that justice can be accomplished even in the event the other standards are primarily emphasized. That is, in striving for beauty, the story that is most important to the community and will best serve them is told; in striving for truth, the kinds of questions that need to be asked, and the methods used by and for the community will ultimately lead to justice. To illustrate these points, I discuss my experiences conducting community-based evaluations at the national and local levels, particularly in communities that are hard to reach, underserved, etc.
|
|
|
Truth, Beauty, and Justice: The Best Way to Spot a Real, Genuine, Authentic Evaluation?
|
| Jane Davidson, Real Evaluation Ltd, jane@realevaluation.co.nz
|
|
A great deal of money and effort is wasted every year around the world on evaluations (and other projects that call themselves "evaluations" but are not). A very important cause of this waste is that evaluators fail to step back, understand the big picture, or make the right trade-offs among competing concerns (such as truth, beauty, and justice). Even when the need for trade-offs and balance is acknowledged, we often see examples of false dichotomies being promoted. A common example is the belief that an in-depth quantitative or qualitative study [with high truth value] cannot possibly be summarized and presented in a [high beauty value] "sound bite". Another is the belief that "justice" is a value that has no place in a scientific "truth-seeking" endeavor such as evaluation. Jane will comment on the appropriateness, sufficiency, and relative importance of truth, beauty, and justice as standards for identifying whether an evaluation is real, genuine, authentic, and practical.
| |
|
Whose Roots? Pushing the Justice Envelope in Evaluation
|
| Rodney Hopson, Duquesne University, hopson@duq.edu
|
|
The second part of Ernie House’s seminal book, Evaluating with Validity, ends with an important sentence following a discussion on justice. And while House is credited with contributing significantly to notions of democracy and social justice in evaluation over the last 25 years (House, 2002; Kushner, 2005), there is a clear need for more developments that push the justice envelope in evaluation. This paper provides an overview of the justice-related approaches in evaluation from a Housian point of view, while integrating evaluation, democracy, and social change in larger perspective (Greene, 2006). In providing overview of justice-approaches in evaluation, the paper extends ways for retracing evaluation roots and building branches of justice and advancing an important and core attribute for the field (Alkin & Christie, 2004; Hopson & Hood, 2005; Ibrahim, 2003; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2010 forthcoming).
| |