Document Type
Article
Department
Behavioral and Organizational Sciences (CGU), Community and Global Health (CGU)
Publication Date
2005
Disciplines
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Abstract
While there is little disagreement about the need for, and value of, program evaluation, there remain major disagreements in the field about best practices (Donaldson & Lipsey, in press). For example, Donaldson and Scriven (2003) invited a diverse group of evaluators to Claremont in 2001 to share their visions for “how we should practice evaluation” in the new millennium. Theorists and practitioners discussed a wide range of views and evaluation approaches, many at odds with one another, on how best to improve evaluation practice (e.g., the experimental paradigm, evaluation as a transdiscipline, results-oriented management, empowerment evaluation, fourth generation evaluation, inclusive evaluation, theory-driven evaluation and the like). In response to some of the heated exchanges, Mark (2003) noted “it seems ironic when evaluators who espouse inclusion, empowerment, and participation would like to exclude, disempower, and see no participation by evaluators who hold different views.” Hefurther concluded that whatever peace has been achieved in the so-call quantitative-qualitative paradigm wars remains an uneasy peace.
Rights Information
© 2005 Stewart I. Donaldson and Christina A. Christie
Recommended Citation
Donaldson, S.I., & Christie, C.A. (2005). The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey versus Scriven. Determining causality in program evaluation and applied research: Should experimental evidence be the gold standard? Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 3, 60-77.
