لخّصلي

Michele Trasilla # 77
http://www.jmde.com/ Theorists’ Theories of Evaluation
Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Volume 6, Number 13
ISSN 1556-8180
February 2010
209
Theorists’ Theories of Evaluation: A
Conversation with Jennifer Greene
Michele Tarsilla
Western Michigan University
Background: Evaluation is sometimes viewed as
a professional practice rather than a discipline
corresponding to a well defined set of theories.
However, Shadish, Cook and Leviton (1991) were
able to demonstrate that evaluators’ work does
have theoretical foundations. In particular, the
authors identified five main elements for
evaluation theory and described the contribution
made to each of them by seven of the most
influential scholars in the field over the last five
decades.
Purpose: This paper intends to further the
discussion on evaluation theory, by examining
some of the contributions made Jennifer Greene,
one of the most influential figures in contemporary
evaluation. The paper mainly focuses on Greene’s
innovative ideas on each of the five main elements
of evaluation theory.
Setting: Not applicable.
Subjects: Not applicable.
Research Design: Not applicable.
Data Collection and Analysis: The paper is the
result of both a desk review of Jennifer Greene’s
most relevant work on bias, objectivity, and
advocacy in evaluation, and a phone interview
with her. For the sake of accuracy, the text of the
interview and the corresponding analysis were
submitted to Greene for review prior to
publication.
Findings: The author shows how Greene has
incorporated the five principles into her own work
and how this eventually influenced her practice.
Greene sorts evaluation approaches based on the
interests they serve and the values they promote.
However, she seems to have developed her theory
on valuing further over the years and today she
claims that evaluators should never privilege
anyone’s specific side in the course of their
assignments. Second, as knowledge is mediated by
evaluators’ perceptual frames, Greene believes that
an unfiltered (objective) view of the world is not
feasible. Third, she views evaluation as a force for
democratizing public conversations about
important issues. Fourth, although the evaluator’s
relationship with program staff could be collegial,
Greene believes that evaluators have no authority
or responsibility for the program design and
implementation. Fifth, Greene declares that
advocacy in evaluation is inevitable and, as a
result, evaluators should play a socially
enfranchising role today.
Conclusions: The debate on evaluation’s main
theoretical foundations is still relevant. For this
purpose, the author recommends that the five
main theories applied by this article to examine
Jennifer Greene’s work should be used more
systematically in the future to describe and analyze
evaluators’ practice. Such theoretical categories
would be especially beneficial in that they will
provide some common ground of understanding
among both practitioners and scholars on
evaluation concepts and practices which
experience has shown to be in constant evolution.
Keywords: evaluation theory, valuing, social
programming, knowledge, practice, use

• Tarsilla, M. (2010). Theorists’ Theories of Evaluation: A Conversation with Jennifer Greene. Journal of
  MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Volume 6, Number 13. 209-219.
  http://www.jmde.com/ Theorists’ Theories of Evaluation
  Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Volume 6, Number 13
  ISSN 1556-8180
  February 2010
  209
  Theorists’ Theories of Evaluation: A
  Conversation with Jennifer Greene
  Michele Tarsilla
  Western Michigan University
  Background: Evaluation is sometimes viewed as
  a professional practice rather than a discipline
  corresponding to a well defined set of theories.
  However, Shadish, Cook and Leviton (1991) were
  able to demonstrate that evaluators’ work does
  have theoretical foundations. In particular, the
  authors identified five main elements for
  evaluation theory and described the contribution
  made to each of them by seven of the most
  influential scholars in the field over the last five
  decades.
  Purpose: This paper intends to further the
  discussion on evaluation theory, by examining
  some of the contributions made Jennifer Greene,
  one of the most influential figures in contemporary
  evaluation. The paper mainly focuses on Greene’s
  innovative ideas on each of the five main elements
  of evaluation theory.
  Setting: Not applicable.
  Subjects: Not applicable.
  Research Design: Not applicable.
  Data Collection and Analysis: The paper is the
  result of both a desk review of Jennifer Greene’s
  most relevant work on bias, objectivity, and
  advocacy in evaluation, and a phone interview
  with her. For the sake of accuracy, the text of the
  interview and the corresponding analysis were
  submitted to Greene for review prior to
  publication.
  Findings: The author shows how Greene has
  incorporated the five principles into her own work
  and how this eventually influenced her practice.
  Greene sorts evaluation approaches based on the
  interests they serve and the values they promote.
  However, she seems to have developed her theory
  on valuing further over the years and today she
  claims that evaluators should never privilege
  anyone’s specific side in the course of their
  assignments. Second, as knowledge is mediated by
  evaluators’ perceptual frames, Greene believes that
  an unfiltered (objective) view of the world is not
  feasible. Third, she views evaluation as a force for
  democratizing public conversations about
  important issues. Fourth, although the evaluator’s
  relationship with program staff could be collegial,
  Greene believes that evaluators have no authority
  or responsibility for the program design and
  implementation. Fifth, Greene declares that
  advocacy in evaluation is inevitable and, as a
  result, evaluators should play a socially
  enfranchising role today.
  Conclusions: The debate on evaluation’s main
  theoretical foundations is still relevant. For this
  purpose, the author recommends that the five
  main theories applied by this article to examine
  Jennifer Greene’s work should be used more
  systematically in the future to describe and analyze
  evaluators’ practice. Such theoretical categories
  would be especially beneficial in that they will
  provide some common ground of understanding
  among both practitioners and scholars on
  evaluation concepts and practices which
  experience has shown to be in constant evolution.
  Keywords: evaluation theory, valuing, social
  programming, knowledge, practice, use