|
Values & Validity
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| James Griffith, Claremont Graduate University, james.griffith@cgu.edu
|
| Bianca Montrosse, Western Carolina University, bemontrosse@wcu.edu
|
| Abstract:
A panel at last year's conference featured contemporary responses to Ernie House's classic Evaluating with Validity. House's original discussion and last year's panel focused on what priority should be emphasized. This paper extends that discussion by analyzing the values inherent in validity and in preferences for truth, beauty, and justice. What values are we accepting, rejecting, or balancing when we choose between truth, justice, and beauty? Similarly, what values are inherent in refusing to make the choice? In our analysis, we draw not only from House's writings and other evaluation theory classics, but also from more contemporary ideas, such as multicultural validity, cultural competence, and praxis. An interesting feature of this discussion is that unlike other theoretical discussions about evaluation, theory and practice are intertwined here. This discussion centers on the collision of theory with the constraints of reality, hence the evaluator's concern about choosing when values compete.
|
|
How Can Social Theory Influence an Evaluation Design: Discussion of Marxism, Postpositivism and Constructivism
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Fatma Ayyad, Western Michigan University, f4ayyad@wmich.edu
|
| Julien Kouame, Western Michigan University, j5kouame@wmich.edu
|
| Abstract:
In this paper, three different paradigms (Postpositivism, Marxism and constructivism) were used separately to construct three frameworks for the same evaluand. Our experience suggests that, though all evaluators are guided by a common logic, the depth and the outcome of their evaluation could be influenced by the paradigm that guides their thoughts.
|
| |