Editorial Foreword - revisiting ‘values’ in evaluation in times of crisis
| Author | Liz Gould |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1035719X20932697 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X20932697
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2020, Vol. 20(2) 61 –62
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X20932697
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
Editorial Foreword -
revisiting ‘values’ in
evaluation in times of crisis
Liz Gould
While writing the Editorial foreword for our December special issue on ‘values’,
I discovered a feature article by Ernest House in 1996, published in this journal, on this
very topic. While my December foreword referenced a later work by House on values
published in the American Journal of Evaluation (House, 2001), I could not resist dig-
ging up this earlier piece from the EJA archives, written five years prior, to round out
this second and final special issue on ‘values’ in evaluation.
In the 1996 feature entitled ‘The Problem of Values in Evaluation’, House grapples
with the practitioner’s task of making evaluative judgements to determine the oft-cited
‘merit, worth, or value of something’ (see Scriven, 1980, 1991). “How does one arrive
at evaluative judgements legitimately, noting that the evaluator’s task is not an easy
one . . . ? ” he asks, acknowledging that “many evaluative judgements are contestable
by their nature” (p6). While there are professional techniques which help with collect-
ing, interpreting, and weighing evidence, there are other relative judgements. House
suggests that distinguishing the major audiences and stakeholders for an evaluation
also helps with deciding evaluative criteria to employ (House, 1996, p8). In doing so,
the evaluator must also consider conflicting interests. He acknowledges that evalua-
tion does not eliminate conflict, rather, the evaluator produces the best judgement to
be arrived at in the situation, given conflicts (House, 1996, p12).
Other theorists – intentionally or otherwise – have adopted, explored and chal-
lenged aspects of this thinking. Nonetheless, issues that House raises remain crucial
considerations in evaluation practice: determining the criteria for making evaluative
judgements, distinguishing the values and preferences of audiences and stakeholders,
and managing conflicting values. More than two decades on, what might newer ‘val-
ues’-thinking add to what is already known? How might contemporary debates and
movements in the evaluation field (too numerous to capture here) benefit or redouble?
On these matters, there is more work to be done.
If – as a number of authors in this June issue of the EJA suggest – we are to be more
explicit about values in evaluation, what does this look like? To cherry-pick a few
examples within this issue: Blaser Mapitsa et al’s study, drawing on examples from
parliaments in Southern and Eastern Africa, suggests that values both influence the
932697EVJ0010.1177/1035719X20932697Evaluation Journal of AustralasiaEditorial
editorial2020
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial