Amelioration

To engage in evaluation is to engage in an activity that has the potential to improve the evaluand, or the human condition, more generally. Logically speaking, no evaluation in and of itself must necessarily purport to be helpful, and making a value judgment does not entail providing prescriptions, remediation, or amelioration. Michael Scriven has clearly delineated the distinction between doing evaluation, making a value judgment, and making a recommendation. In a theory of evaluation, this is an important distinction. In evaluation practice, however, the making of value judgments and the provision of recommendations becomes blurred because we have come to expect the work of evaluators and the purpose of evaluation to be more than simple rendering of value judgments: The purpose of evaluation is also to make things better. Acknowledging the serious logical and conceptual problems of moving from evaluative to prescriptive claims or actions, evaluation is meant to be helpful.

The assertion that evaluation should lead to improvement is in most senses self-evident. What is less evident is how evaluation is expected to contribute to making things better. Indeed, different approaches to evaluation conceptualize helpfulness and improvement differently. Speaking broadly, amelioration takes the form of progress either through science or through democratic processes. The first sort of amelioration is typical of quasiexperimental, decision-making, and systems analysis approaches to evaluation. The second sort of help is typical of participatory, collaborative, and deliberative approaches to evaluation.

Evaluations that are based on amelioration through science focus on the methods used (quasiexperimental [Page 17]or at least controlled) because these methods permit the examination of causal hypotheses. It is these causal relationships that are the key to amelioration—if one knows what causes what (e.g., whole-language teaching causes higher reading achievement), then this causal claim can be used to improve programs or services by choices that reflect the causal claim(e.g., adopting whole-language pedagogy). These causal claims might be reflected in their contribution to a general theory (of, say, academic achievement) or program theory (of, say, reading programs).

Evaluations that are based on amelioration through democratic processes assume that the meanings of good and right are socially constructed rather than scientifically discovered. This view suggests that truth claims are not natural causal laws but rather informed, sophisticated interpretations that are tentatively held. These interpretations depend on deliberation and dialogue, and it is this emphasis on evaluation process that flags this perspective of amelioration. Participatory, deliberative, and democratic approaches to evaluation reflect the ameliorative assumption based on faith in inclusiveness, participation, public dialogue, and constructivism as the means to improving or helping. Programs, services, and communities will be better asa result of an evaluation that includes stakeholders in genuine ways, thus enabling self-determination in problem definitions and solutions.