Intangible Outcomes The Importance and Current Neglect Within Evaluation Practice

Main Article Content

Kurt Wilson

Abstract

Human life – and therefore the scope of human goals – includes dimensions that are both visible and countable (e.g., money, weight, attendance or tested proficiency) as well the invisible and intangible (e.g., hope, trust, faith, love, joy, peace). Furthermore, the visible and tangible aspects of life are intrinsically connected to and dependent on the invisible and intangible aspects - much as the visible branches and fruit of a tree are connected to and dependent on an underlying and hidden root structure. While the importance of intangibles can be understood intuitively, it can also be illustrated: 73% of all charitable giving in the U.S. goes to organizations that are explicitly religious, and 118,280 nonprofit organizations are so strongly identified with the intangibles of hope, trust, faith, love, joy, peace that they included one of these words in their name. While the intangible realities of human life are explicitly relevant to a large proportion of organizations we seek to serve, it is essentially ignored by current evaluation practice: only 10 articles within the American Journal of Evaluation, New Directions in Evaluation and Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation included even minimal reference to the most common intangibles. New evaluation theory and methodology to address this gap will be needed, and cross-disciplinary exploration with psychology, philosophy and sociology should guide this development. In the meantime, useful questions about intangibles can be drawn from the AEA guiding principles and addressing these can provide a useful starting point for evaluators seeking to consider intangibles within their evaluations.  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wilson, K. (2022). Intangible Outcomes: The Importance and Current Neglect Within Evaluation Practice. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 18(42), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v18i42.735
Section
Ideas to Consider in Evaluation
Author Biography

Kurt Wilson, President, Effect X LLC

I worked as a foundation program officer/grant evaluator years ago, own my own company that provides advertising to nonprofit organizaitons, and just started the Ph.D. program at WMU.

References

American Evaluation Association (2018). Guiding principles for evaluators. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles

Brownhill, S. H., Stevens, G. J., Hammond, T. E., Baldacchino, R., Maposa, R., Makoni, B., Sheb'A, A., Andepalli, J., Kotak, A., D'Souza, O., Atashnama, A., Thayil, A., & Jones, A. (2021). Cultural humility: A collaborative approach to recruiting patients with deliberate self-harm into a multi-hospital randomized controlled trial. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 17(39), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v17i39.665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v17i39.665

Campbell-Patton, C. (2016). [Review of the book Peace education evaluation: Learning from experience and exploring prospects, C. Del Felice, A. Karako, & A. Wisler, eds.] American Journal of Evaluation, 37(4), 580-583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016637674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016637674

Clinton, J. (2014). The true impact of evaluation: Motivation for ECB. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(1), 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013499602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013499602

Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2000). Attitude versus aptitude: Is intelligence or motivation more important for positive higher-educational outcomes? Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400151004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400151004

Datta, L. E. (2009). Golden is the sand: Memory and hope in evaluation policy and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 123, 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.304

De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 23. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110

Donaldson, S. I. (2018). There is more to life than evaluation logic and data: Trusting gut feeling. New Directions for Evaluation, 157, 117-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20284

Gallup (2013, December 24). Church attendance today similar to 1940s. https://web.archive.org/web/20140122081705/http://www.gallup.com/video/166598/church-attendance-today-similar-1940s.aspx

Grubbs, S. T. (2009). An evaluation of an alternative teacher certification program a matter of trust. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009349449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009349449

Jumpstart Labs (2013). Connected to Give: Faith Communities Key Findings from the National Study of American Religious Giving. http://jumpstartlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ConnectedToGive3_FaithCommunities_Jumpstart2014_v1.3.pdf

Mark, M. M., Donaldson, S. I., & Campbell, B. (Eds.). (2011). Social Psychology and Evaluation. Guilford Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press.

Robinson, H. (2020). Dualism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Schulz, J., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J., & Henrich, J. (2018). The origins of WEIRD psychology. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3201031 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3201031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3201031

Scriven, M. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 68, 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1019

Sechrest, L. (1980). Evaluation researchers: Disciplinary training and identity. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 8, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1257

Shackman, G. (2012). Social psychology and evaluation. The Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 132-134. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v8i17.333 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v8i17.333

Sturges, K. M. (2014). External evaluation as contract work: The production of evaluator identity. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013513829 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013513829

Tarsilla, M. (2010). Being blind in a world of multiple perspectives: The evaluator's dilemma between the hope of becoming a team player and the fear of becoming a critical friend with no friends. The Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 200-205. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i13.257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i13.257

Zinsmeister, K. (2019, Winter). Less God, less giving? Religion and generosity feed each other in fascinating ways. Philanthropy Roundtable. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/philanthropy-magazine/less-god-less-giving

Most read articles by the same author(s)