The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

14 Sandy Tautpower, roles and resources as desirable and legitimate. People are socialized to comply with theirroles and the obligations related to each role. Society often penalizes people for failing tocomply with the obligations imparted by their social status (Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p. 79).Thus, paradoxically, what the Standards list as Common Errors may serve as Guidelines in highhierarchy cultures, e.g., when stating: "Assuming that persons in leadership or decision-makingroles are the only, or most important, stakeholders." (Joint Committee, 1994, p. 26. For example,for South Korea, Jang (2000, p. 10) points out that “the project focus is likely to be determinedby the specific client group that supports and controls the project.” Throughout her analysis ofthe applicability of the Standards in South Korean society, Jang stresses the importance of thefocus on the top client group (see Jang, 2000, pp. 10) and she concludes that “evaluators […]need to meet only the immediate stakeholder’s expectations” (p. 24).U2 Evaluator Credibility The persons conducting the evaluation shouldbe both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation, so that the evaluationfindings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance.The second Utility Standard U2, Evaluator Credibility, also touches upon culturallyrelevant value dimensions. As pointed out before by Smith et al. (1994, p. 7), the concept of aprofessional differs across cultures (e.g., between Malta, India, and the U.S.). They state that “inthe U.S., a professional is someone who […] has acquired a certain expertise [which] isofficially acknowledged through certification and licensure […],” whereas in Malta, “the notionof professional is much looser […].” In India, “‘Professionalism’ is not a common word and tothe orthodox or older generation it connotes a lack of love for the job […]. Professionalism hasnothing to do with the level of one’s expertise” (p. 7). Consequently, the notion of ‘competence’as specified in the Program Evaluation Standards (see Joint Committee, 1994, p. 31) is not aprerequisite for an evaluator’s credibility across all cultures. The characteristics that causeclients to judge the professional evaluator as competent and trustworthy differ across cultures.For example, cross-cultural organizational psychology uses the principle of seniority to describedifferences in authority held by members of an organization (Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p. 379).According to this principle, older people are per se attributed a higher degree of competence incertain cultures, regardless of other factors also influencing competence, e.g., level of education(see Jang 2000, p. 26). The social status of a person (often positively correlated with age) alsoaffects the attribution of competence and trustworthiness in certain cultures, contrary to a moreachievement-oriented, individualistic approach to professional worthiness. The latter is conveyedin the Standards when stating that "evaluators are credible to the extent that they exhibit thetraining, technical competence, substantive knowledge, experience, integrity, public relationsskills, and other characteristics considered necessary by clients […]" (Joint Committee, 1994, p.31). For example, Jang (2000, p. 11) notes that the well-known “name” of the evaluator is thebasis for being considered competent by South Korean clients. As another example, an Indianevaluator (see Hendricks & Conner, 1995, p. 83) describes his culture as one in which“personalized relationships and connections matter more than public interest,” so that “a nexus