The whole elephant: Defining evaluation

Amy M. Gullickson

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2020, vol. 79, issue C

Abstract: Definitions help us understand the characteristics of an object or phenomenon and are a necessary precursor to understanding what a good version of it looks like. Evaluation as a field has resisted a common definition (Crane, 1988; Morell & Flaherty, 1978; M. F. Smith, 1999), which has implications for marketing, training, practice, and quality assurance. In this position paper, I describe the benefits and challenges of not having a clear, agreed-upon definition, then propose and explore the implications of two definitions for the evaluation profession based on values and valuation as the core of evaluation practice. The purpose is to describe a possible way forward through definition that would increase our professional profile, power, and contribution to social justice. The paper concludes with implications for evaluator competencies and evaluation education and questions for further research.

Keywords: Evaluation; Evaluation education; Evaluation theory; Evaluation practice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891930360X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:epplan:v:79:y:2020:i:c:s014971891930360x

DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101787

Access Statistics for this article

Evaluation and Program Planning is currently edited by Jonathan A. Morell

More articles in Evaluation and Program Planning from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().