Suchergebnisse

AbstractAsking a few simple questions about the context of an evaluation can help you decide if a naturalistic approach is appropriate.

AbstractThe research summarized in this chapter provides descriptive evidence to support House's vision of validity by expanding connections with his theory to a wide variety of professions, in addition to professional evaluators. Perhaps these results and discussion of them and the emerging model will invite professionals to reflect upon ways to improve their own evaluative judgments. Case study interviews were conducted in Canada and the United States with 27 professionals from many helping professions, including law and law enforcement, social work, medicine, education, business, sports, and chaplaincy. Participants were asked to discuss examples of successful and less successful evaluative judgments they had made in their professional work. Citing patterns discovered through analysis of these contrasting examples, we linked their experiences to House's framework regarding truth, beauty, and justice as foundations for validity. This research thus generated a descriptive model of a process to produce credible evaluation judgments with six interacting elements: (1) credible judgments evolve through an iterative process; (2) frameworks, protocols, and methods may help professionals generate valid evidence, but they are often not sufficient; (3) stakeholders' involvement is essential, and how they participate varies depending on the circumstances; (4) the path required to generate a credible judgment is rarely linear; (5) credible judgment is based on strong argumentation that is properly developed and aesthetically presented; (6) the production of credible judgments depends on special dispositions, orientations, or qualities of the professionals.

AbstractThe authors attended the plenary sessions, several Presidential Strand sessions, and other sessions at the 2001 annual meeting of the AEA to collect examples of evaluators and their clients exploring related issues. The authors raised questions and proposed directions to consider in using evaluation to improve organizations and their practices. Many of their ideas about what mainstreaming means, whether we should mainstream evaluation or not, how evaluation approaches relate to mainstreaming, and how to mainstream are summarized here.

This paper explores the "intellectual roots" of some of today's major contributors to accounting research. Specifically, twenty-four present-day contributors were identified through their publication records and editorial service. For each of these contributors, the dissertation chairman was identified and assumed to be the primary mentor; in turn, dissertation chairmen for these individuals were also identified. Several iterations of this process produced four generations of accounting genealogy. The intellectual roots depicted in this paper highlight noteworthy linkages with members of the Accounting Hall of Fame, recipients of the Outstanding Educators Award, and with education in the discipline of economics.