Visualizing Evaluation Theory: Tree, Forest, or Ocean Currents?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v20i48.1015

Keywords:

Indigenous, transformative, epistemology, axiology, ontology, methodology

Abstract

Evaluation theories depicted as a five-branch tree reflect the assumptions of the post-positivist, constructivist, pragmatic, transformative, and Indigenous paradigms. A tree is useful because it provides a quick and clear way to show that different assumptions lead to different methodological assumptions. However, evaluation theory as a five-branch tree is limited because it does not show interrelationships between the paradigms. An ocean current visualization could accomplish that task, but it might not be a familiar concept for some populations. Evaluators need to check with stakeholders to ensure the visualizations that are used are viewed as useful to their purposes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Donna M. Mertens, Gallaudet University

Donna Mertens is a Professor of research and evaluation at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She is the author of Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (Sage 2010) and Transformative Research and Evaluation (Guilford 2009)

References

Alkin, M. (Ed.). (2004). Evaluation roots. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984157

Alkin, M., & Christie, C. (Eds.). (2023). Evaluation roots (3rd ed.). Sage.

Chilisa, B. (2020). Indigenous research methodologies (2nd ed.). Sage.

Chilisa, B., & Mertens, D. M. (2021). Indigenous Made in Africa evaluation frameworks: Addressing epistemic violence and contributing to social transformation. American Journal of Evaluation, 42(2), 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020948601

Chouinard, J. A., & Cram, F. (2019). Culturally responsive approaches to evaluation. Sage.

Christie, C. A., & Alkin M. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots (pp. 12-66). Sage.

Cram, F., & Chouinard, J. A. (2023). Culturally responsive evaluation: An Indigenous journey through culturally responsive approaches. In M. Alkin & C. Christie (Eds.), Evaluation roots (3rd ed., pp. 145-157). Guilford Press.

Cram, F., & Mertens, D. M. (2015), Transformative and indigenous frameworks for multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 91-109). Oxford Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.7

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Sage.

Holder, E. & Xiong, C. (2022). Dispersion vs disparity: Hiding variables can encourage stereotyping when visualizing social outcomes. arXiv:2208.04440v2 [cs.HC] 25 Sep 2022 pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209377

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage.

Mertens, D. M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409902000102

Mertens, D. M. (2018). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506330631

Mertens, D. M. (2023). The pursuit of social, economic, and environmental justice through evaluation: Learning from Indigenous scholars and the fifth branch of the evaluation theory tree. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(44), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i44.749

Mertens, D. M. (2024). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (6th ed.). Sage.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2019). Program evaluation theory and practice (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Mertens, D.M., Hall, J. & Wilson, A.T. (in press). Program evaluation theory and practice. (3rd ed.) Guilford Press.

NOAA. (2023). What is the global ocean conveyor belt? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/conveyor.html

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law. NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Schwabish, J. & Feng, A. (2021). Do no harm guide: Applying equity awareness in data visualization. Urban Institute. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x8tbw

United Nations. (2015, September 25). Resolution adopted by the general assembly: Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

Wohlleben, P. (2016). The Hidden life of trees. Greystone Books.

cover page

Downloads

Published

16-Aug-24

How to Cite

Mertens, D. (2024). Visualizing Evaluation Theory: Tree, Forest, or Ocean Currents?. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 20(48), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v20i48.1015

Issue

Section

Special Issue on Visualizing Evaluation Theory