Is Adversary Evaluation Worth a Second Look?

Autor/in	Picciotto, Robert
Titel	Is Adversary Evaluation Worth a Second Look?
Quelle	In: American Journal of Evaluation, 40 (2019) 1, S.92-103 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1098-2140
DOI	10.1177/1098214018783068
Schlagwörter	Evaluation Methods; Models; Democracy; Justice; Ethics; Hearings; Evidence; Citizen Participation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Analogiemodell; Demokratie; Gerechtigkeit; Ethik; Evidenz; 'Citizen participation; Citizens'' participation'; Bürgerbeteiligung
Abstract	The adversary evaluation model emerged in a context that favored democratic debate. It was successfully used in a variety of sectors following its inception, but it was abandoned once neo-liberal thinking and goal achievement approaches became dominant. It is time to give it a second chance. The judicial evaluation model (JEM) relies on human testimony, rules of evidence, cross examination and principled deliberation. These features contribute to evaluation independence, a characteristic that is sorely needed in today's fractured social environment. JEM promotes civil interaction among groups committed to different ideologies. It encourages tolerance and respects pluralism by combining professional authority with direct citizen participation and neutral facilitation. Competently designed and managed, it resists capture by vested interests and it holds promise as an instrument of progressive evaluation focused on the public interest. Since it is demanding and time consuming, it is especially relevant for large, controversial and complex interventions. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01