- 10 Downloads
We shall attempt now to stand back a little from our text. We have argued that evaluators themselves should not be the sole arbiters or judges of practice. They have a responsibility to generate evidence of the ‘truths’ of practice as competently as they possibly can. Evaluators should also be accountable for the evidence they provide and the appraisals they generate. Critical evaluators should participate with as many stakeholders as possible in jointly reaching judgements about the value of an activity, programme or policy. Likewise, they should work developmentally in mutually negotiated change processes. Criteria for evaluating whether practice is ‘good’, ‘good enough’, ‘poor’ or ‘corrupt’ are not plucked from the air. Nor are they chosen ‘top down’ or arbitrarily. These criteria are grounded in the realities of political economy and constructed through value positions, which include those of democracy, justice, equality and anti-oppression.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.