Minority Issues in Evaluation

Evaluative judgments are, by their nature, inextricably bound up with culture and context. Thus, where there is sociocultural diversity, there very likely is some diversity in the expected and preferred evaluative processes and practices that undergird judgments of merit, worth, value, quality, significance, and congruence. Maximizing accuracy, appropriateness, respect, and excellence calls for openness to the decentering realities and complexities of difference and diversity. The presumption of similarity and single reality theories often leads evaluators—as well as other practitioners—to overlook, if not explicitly dismiss, such diversity as extraneous nuisance variation and noise.

When not dismissible in such oversimplifying ways, socioculturally grounded differences are often defined as problematic targets for amelioration and correction. Difference tends to be almost automatically interpreted as deficient and deviant. It is not surprising, then, that patterns of sociocultural diversity have become intimately intertwined with systemic processes of asymmetric power relations and privilege. This has resulted in systematic patterns of difference in access, resource opportunities, and life chances associated with major diversity markers such as race and ethnicity.

Such patterns are often related to and exacerbated by minority status. Minority—versus majority—status, and related issues, may revolve around several dimensions:

• Sociodemographic representation. Who is physically present (structural diversity)?
• Sociopolitical voice and power. Who defines, who determines, who decides?
• Socioeconomic access and opportunity. Who has control over and benefits from valued material resources and assets?
• Sociocultural presence. Whose ways of being, doing, thinking, knowing, and engaging define the “mainstream” rules, roles, and normative expectations (the disposition of social mirrors and windows)?

[Page 253]In general, minority issues in the evaluation spotlight involve considerations related to underrepresented or unrepresented persons, perspectives, concerns, and so on that have an impact on accuracy, value, validity, or utility. Not attending to these issues often results in myopic inaccuracies, truncated understandings, and twisted representations, especially when such differences are associated with minority status that is treated as a deviant or extraneous variation.

The AEA Guiding Principles spotlight the need to attend mindfully and proactively to the full spectrum of diversity issues as a necessary prerequisite for ethical practice. This is particularly critical when diversity is associated with underrepresented “minority” persons, positions, and views. Guiding Principles D and E are especially relevant. Guiding Principle D, respect for people—with its focus on respecting “security, dignity and self-worth”—requires empathic competencies if respect is to be offered in ways that are perceived and received as respectful. To discern and make that judgment accurately, one needs to be able to engage in cognitive and affective frame shifting and probably also behavioral code switching—notably, standing and sitting in another's perspective. Such skills constitute the core infrastructure for intercultural and multicultural competencies. Guiding Principle E, responsibilities for general and public welfare, is a logical follow-up to Principle D: “Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of interests and values that may be related to the general and public welfare.” This ethical principle challenges evaluators to know the spectrum of interests and perspectives as they attend to the “full range of stakeholders.”

To embrace these principles effectively, evaluators need refined awareness of and openness to diversity as well as an understanding of how to engage such diversity authentically. Presumed similarity through sociocultural invisibility—regardless of intent—is problematic. As the default condition for many, that ethnocentric presumption poorly prepares evaluators to honor these guiding principles in actual practice. What ultimately matters is not personal intent but rather interpersonal impact. To what extent do the persons whom evaluators engage discern and feel that the evaluative processes, protocols, practices, and products used are congruent with, are responsive to, and accurately reflect their internal sociocultural structures and rhythms (experiential validity)? This is a critical question that deserves to be asked and substantively answered.

...