EVALUATION THEORY TREE

Evaluation Theory Tree

Evaluation Theory Tree

Evaluation Theory Tree

Our evaluation theory tree is presented in Figure 2.1, in which we depict the trunk and the three primary branches of the family tree. The trunk is built on a dual foundation of accountability and systematic social inquiry. These two areas have supported the development of the field in different ways. The need and desire for accountability presents a need for evaluation. The importance of accounting for actions or for resources used in the conduct of programs is particularly evident for programs supported by government entities. The same accountability demand could be said to be present for corporate businesses that annually are required to provide reports from outside auditors to their shareholders (although the accounting scandals of the early 2000s, e.g., Enron, would dispute how accountable these audits actually have been). As a root for program evaluation, we think of accountability in the broadest way possible. That is, accountability is not a limiting activity, but, rather, is designed to improve and better programs and society. The social inquiry root of the tree emanates from a concern for employing a systematic and justifiable set of methods for determining accountability. While accountability provides the rationale, it is primarily from social inquiry that evaluation models have been derived(Mark, 2000).

The main branch of the tree is the continuation of the social inquiry trunk. This is the evaluation as research, or evaluation guided by research methods, branch. This branch we have designated methods since in its purest form, it deals with obtaining generalizability, or “knowledge construction,” as Shadish, Cook, and Leviton (1991) refer to it.

Another branch we call the valuing branch. Initially inspired by the work of Michael Scriven (1967), the valuing branch firmly establishes the vital role of the evaluator in valuing. Those on this branch maintain that placing value on data is perhaps the most essential component of the evaluator's work. Some subsequent theorists extend the evaluator's role to include systematically facilitating the placing of value by others (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The third major branch is use, which, with the pioneering work of Daniel Stufflebeam (initially with Egon Guba) and the work of Joseph Wholey, originally focused on an orientation toward evaluation and decision making. In essence, work done by theorists on this branch expresses a concern for the way in which evaluation information will be used and focuses on those who will use the information. We will start with a discussion of the accountability and social inquiry roots and then discuss each of the major branches of the tree(Boruch, 2000).

Accountability And Control

Accountability refers to the process of “giving an account” or being answerable or capable of being accounted for. Wagner (1989) indicates that there are several dimensions to accountability. The first of these is “reporting,” in which description is provided. A second phase of accountability is a “justifying analysis” or explanation. But accountability in its fullest sense may be more. In instances where a justifying analysis recognizes deficiencies, true ...