Editorial
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X231168702 |
| Author | John Guenther |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2023, Vol. 23(2) 67–69
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X231168702
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
Editorial
John Guenther
Our second issue of the Evaluation Journal of Australasia for 2023 seems to present an
eclectic mix of articles without a common thread. But as I re-read the contributions, I
did find a common thread around the theme of ‘thinking’. Beyond being thought
provoking, each article offers a different take on thinking, from evaluative thinking, to
ethical thinking, to complex systems thinking, to deep thinking, critical thinking, and
reflexive thinking. I congratulate the authors for their thoughtful articles and trust that
their contributions will encourage actions that improve the practice of evaluation and
evaluators.
Michael Cole’s article on evaluative thinking is a good reminder to all of us engaged
in evaluation, that our work is not just a pragmatic or mechanical exercise involving a
standard set of tasks. This article gets us thinking about thinking as a set of skills, and
what that means for evaluative work. He also reminds us that our work as evaluators
requires us to question our assumptions, to apply inductive reasoning, reflect on our
positionalities, and think creatively through the entire process of an evaluation. I don’t
know how many times I have been challenged with the statement: ‘I can’t see where
your recommendations have come from in the evidence you have provided’. And of
course sometimes the connections just need some clarification, but more often than not,
development of recommendations is not a simple deductive logical process, but rather a
creative and lateral exercise that calls on many if not all the elements of evaluative
thinking that Michael describes so well. The challenge for those of us in the evaluation
profession is to bring along with us, those who are also part of the evaluation process,
from commissioners, to program managers, and to end users. The collective power of
evaluative thinking has the potential to enhance the utility of evaluation and perhaps
more importantly, the knowledge generated from our work.
Tony O’Connor’s practice article on procedural and participatory ethics in
community-based evaluation settings discusses an example which he considers makes
ethics committees’oversight of projects redundant beyond the initial application and
approval. The argument presented suggests that in evaluations where the context
requires continual adjustment, then ethical issues are best handled by community-based
actors –in this case, a steering committee. As an aside, and picking up the theme of
Michael Cole’s article, it may be that ‘ethical thinking’(Yang, 2020) is required here.
While I see the merits of O’Connor’s argument –particularly from a pragmatic
To continue reading
Request your trial