|
Session Title: Juxtapositions in Evaluations With Explicit Human Rights and Social Justice Values
|
|
Panel Session 929 to be held in Manhattan on Saturday, Nov 5, 12:35 PM to 2:05 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the AEA Conference Committee
|
| Chair(s): |
| Donna Mertens, Gallaudet University, donna.mertens@gallaudet.edu
|
| Abstract:
When evaluators position themselves within an explicit social justice and human rights value system, this has implications for how the evaluation is planned, implemented, and used. Frequently, tensions arise when these values are made explicit for a variety of reasons based on differences in perceptions of various stakeholder groups related to the need for evaluations to be value-free; the purpose of doing an evaluation when the project is “over”; views about the purpose of the program; and effects of including culturally appropriate rituals and manners of interaction on the rigor of the evaluation. Each of these reasons for tensions will be illustrated by means of juxtaposing the differences in viewpoints, followed by presentations to address each of these reasons by means of role plays, use of data to stimulate action, visual displays, and re-enactment of appropriate cultural rituals and manners of interaction. The focus will be on constructive strategies for addressing the tensions in evaluations that are explicitly value-laden in evaluations with ethnic/racial minorities, deaf people, people with disabilities, women in developing countries, and indigenous peoples.
|
|
The Juxtaposition of Competing Values Held by Funders and Program Designers as Compared to Members of Marginalized Communities
|
| Katrina Bledsoe, Education Development Center Inc, katrina.bledsoe@gmail.com
|
|
The first presentation, by Katrina Bledsoe, will address the juxtaposition of competing values held by funders and program designers as compared to members of marginalized communities. She has experienced evaluations in which the program funders and program designers view the value of a program in terms of benevolence (charity), whereas members of marginalized communities frame the value of the program in terms of social justice (equity). These differences at the starting point of an evaluation call upon the evaluator to creatively make visible the differences in values and the consequences of working from either a benevolence or social justice perspective. Bledsoe will use visual displays and role plays to illustrate how to situate applicable evaluations in terms of their historical context through films, pictures, tours of areas, discussions with elders as well as young folks, and written historical accounts. Her focus is on how she addresses differences in values and the associated consequences in terms of critically analyzing what the program is designed to do, how the program will accomplish its goals, and how the evaluation will contribute to the process. Through this presentation that makes visible historical injustices, she will demonstrate the value marginalized community members place on recognizing their strengths and resiliency.
|
|
|
Differences in Viewpoints With Regard to the Purpose of an Evaluation When Stakeholders Know the Funded Program is Ending
|
| Donna Mertens, Gallaudet University, donna.mertens@gallaudet.edu
|
|
The second presentation by Donna M. Mertens will address the differences in viewpoints with regard to the purpose of an evaluation when stakeholders know the funded program is ending. Set within the context of a program to prepare teachers for deaf children who have a disability, she will demonstrate through role plays how the data collected in the middle of the evaluation can be used to stimulate social action to address issues of inequities based on discrimination against people who have a disability or come from homes where English is not the first language.
| |
|
Motivating Evaluators to be Aware of the Need for Appropriate Support for People With Disabilities Who Participate in an Evaluation
|
| Linda Thurston, National Science Foundation, lthursto@nsf.gov
|
|
The third presenter, Linda Thurston, will demonstrate how to appropriately motivate evaluators to be aware of the need for appropriate support for people with disabilities who participate in the evaluation. She will demonstrate through visual displays the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from fully participating in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) projects and how evaluators can serve as the catalyst for appropriate accommodations being provided.
| |
|
Supporting the Argument for Gender Equality and Human Rights in Evaluation
|
| Belen Sanz, UN Women, belen.sanz@unwomen.org
|
| Inga Sniukaite, UN Women, inga.sniukaite@unwomen.org
|
|
The fourth presentation, by Belen Sanz and Inga Sniukaite, is based on their work in gender equality and human rights which are central to the United Nations mandate to address the underlying causes and utilizing processes that align with these values. The UN Women staff support a value-based evaluation approach, however, evaluation managers and evaluators themselves struggle to make these values an integral to their work because of budget and time constraints, as well as because of the presumption that evaluations should be value free. The two presenters will use examples from UN Women evaluations to illustrate through role plays how they support the argument of the need to integrate gender quality and human rights into the evaluations that they fund.
| |
|
How the Inclusion of Culturally Appropriate Rituals and Manners of Interaction Contribute to the Validity of Evaluations
|
| Kataraina Pipi, Independent Consultant, kpipi@xtra.co.nz
|
|
Kataraina Pipi will be the final presenter; she will illustrate how the inclusion of culturally appropriate rituals and manners of interaction contribute to the validity of evaluations conducted with the Maori community in New Zealand. She will demonstrate the cultural rituals and provide examples of how music is used as part of a culturally appropriate evaluation in this context.
| |