Leviton L
American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4): 525-535, December 2003
In this article the author, Laura Leviton, discusses key issues around the use of evaluation, citing many views from the literature and offering examples from her own work. She notes that more comprehensive frameworks have emerged to help inform practitioners about underlying processes and argues that a better standard of evidence and specific techniques are needed. Leviton addresses the importance of the body of evidence—which includes multiple, heterogeneous studies—as a critical factor in evaluation use and stresses the need for attention to context, since users’ own “bodies of evidence” may be correct or incorrect, complete or incomplete, resulting in “uncertainty” (when users are aware of their lack of information) or “flawed assumptions” (when users are not aware of their information deficit). She offers methods to reduce uncertainty and challenge flawed assumptions and also notes the role of serendipity in evaluation use. Two criticisms of evaluation use are presented as legitimate: the view of the program and policy worlds that many evaluations are conducted so poorly that they should not be used and evaluators' criticism that, due to political and managerial self-interest, evaluations are often used to legitimate decisions made for other reasons. Finally, Leviton outlines reasons for the high impact of Paul Hills’ evaluation, mandated by the U.S. Congress in the late 1970s, on behalf of the National Institute of Education. This work led to many changes in amendments to federal education law.
Associated Grant ID: RWJF Staff
Full text of this item is available, but may require a fee or registration.