Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Dentistry, University of Queensland, 288 Herston Road, Herston, Queensland, 4006, Australia;2. Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health (ARCPOH), The University of Adelaide, ARCPOH Level 1, 122 Frome Street, 5005, Australia;1. Department of Rural Development Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran;2. Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran;1. Oregon State University, 118B Milam Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States;2. California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States;3. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States;4. University of Maryland, College Park, Columbia, MD, United States;5. Yale University, CT, United States;1. California State University, Bakersfield, United States;2. Kern County Children and Families Commission, United States;3. University of California, Los Angeles, United States;4. New York University, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Stakeholders and evaluators hold a variety of levels of assumptions at the philosophical, methodological, and programmatic levels. The use of a transformative philosophical framework is presented as a way for evaluators to become more aware of the implications of various assumptions made by themselves and program stakeholders. The argument is examined and demonstrated that evaluators who are aware of the assumptions that underlie their evaluation choices are able to provide useful support for stakeholders in the examination of the assumptions they hold with regard to the nature of the problem being addressed, the program designed to solve the problem, and the approach to evaluation that is appropriate in that context. Such an informed approach has the potential for development of more appropriate and culturally responsive programs being implemented in ways that lead to the desired impacts, as well as to lead to evaluation approaches that support effective solutions to intransigent social problems. These arguments are illustrated through examples of evaluations from multiple sectors; additional challenges are also identified. |
| |
| Keywords: | Transformative Climate change Sexual violence International development Human rights Social justice Assumptions |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
