The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

More documents

Recommendations

Info

36 Nick L. Smith, Saviour Chircop and Prachee Mukherjeegrants warrants to practice to lawyers, architects, and teachers. Although the Maltese MedicalAssociation is an exception–they fought a hard battle to keep the right to certify their ownpeople–in most other instances it is the state that certifies practice and acts as a referee, comingonto the scene if needed to insure fairness and equity. In India, the use of professional evaluationstandards would hurt vested interests and would likely soon be subverted into a mockery of thevery ideals such standard are designed to uphold. For example, it is believed to be commonpractice in India for a manufacturer of a less than acceptable product to get that product certifiedby the Indian Standard Institute through payoffs to relevant officials. Given current Indiancultural norms, one might expect evaluation standards to be treated similarly.In the U.S., a pluralistic culture of strong professional groups with a tradition ofprofessional standards and a history of compliance with self-generated laws and guidelines, thedevelopment and use of professional evaluation standards is reasonable and likely to be useful.In other cultures, such as Malta and India, where a well-defined ethos determines behavior;where few individuals practice professional evaluation; where professional identity is notdominant, the use of standards is uncommon and explicit laws are historically the result ofoppressive governments serving foreign interests; the development and use of indigenousprofessional evaluation standards are unlikely, unwelcome, and probably unuseful.International Use of the Joint Committee (1981) StandardsIndigenous evaluation standards seem unlikely to be developed and used in such cultures asMalta and India as they are in the U.S. But what of the western evaluator who is conducting anevaluation in a country such as Malta or India: are there possible modifications to the JointCommittee (1981) standards that would guide one in conducting both a professionally adequate(by U.S. standards) and culturally sensitive evaluation? We discuss a few examples below toillustrate some of the ways in which individual standards would have to be modified to be morerelevant to the cultures of Malta and India. Since there can be no universal, culturally-relevantstandards, different modifications would have to be made for each separate culture.C1 - Formal ObligationObligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom,when) should be agreed to in writing, so that these parties are obligated to adhere to allconditions of the agreement or formally to renegotiate it (Joint Committee, 1981, p.63).Formal agreements are comparatively rare in India. Litigation in civil courts is largelylimited to property and tenant-landlord disputes. Matters like libel and alimony(divorce/separation is not common enough to be considered a problem) are not settled in court.Since litigation about contractual agreements is less common, the power of a formal agreement,which in the U.S. might then be enforced through the courts, is much less.
Considerations on the Development of Culturally Relevant Evaluation Standards 37C2 - Conflict of InterestConflict of interest, frequently unavoidable, should be dealt with openly and honestly, sothat it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results (Joint Committee, 1981,p.63).This standard would be less important in India, or at least would be construed verydifferently. Since evaluations are done at the federal level by individuals specifically chosen fora point of view consistent with the official position, it would be expected an accepted that theevaluator would have what, in a U.S. view, would be considered a conflict of interest. In India,the evaluator would not be considered to be in a conflict of interest situation. One would notparticularly gain anything by employing an independent point of view. Since the political systemis one of majority control, without the two party checks and balances of the U.S. system,independent viewpoints would be considered neither prudent nor necessarily laudable.C3 - Full and Frank DisclosureOral and written evaluation reports should be open, direct, and honest in their disclosure ofpertinent findings, including the limitations of the evaluation (Joint Committee, 1981,p.63).In both Malta and India, one would simply never write anything that would jeopardizesomeone’s job, except for political reasons, as, for example, if one were in a politicallyadversarial position. Otherwise, placing someone in jeopardy would be considered inappropriatebehavior. Such information might be orally communicated, but never written. Thus a U.S.evaluator would need to modify the nature and content of written reports in ways likely toviolate the original (U.S.) interpretation of this standard.C5 - Rights of Human SubjectsEvaluations should be designed and conducted, so that the rights and welfare of the humansubjects are respected and protected (Joint Committee, 1981, p.64).Although it is important to protect the rights of individuals in any culture, those rightsdifferent from culture to culture. A U.S. evaluator would have to modify the application of thisstandard to fit the Maltese and Indian cultures. For example, what constitutes injury and redressin these cultures is different from the U.S. In the U.S., reputation and mental health are viewedas possessions or property of the individual, the damage of which can be translated into dollarsso that redress can be made in financial terms. In Malta or India, litigation is common over landor personal property, but not over reputation or mental health, which are not possessed by theindividual in the U.S. sense. Individuals in these two cultures do not take offense as readily andredress may be in more symbolic ways, such as public apology.
Page 1 and 2: The Program Evaluation Standardsin
Page 3 and 4: The editor acknowledges the valuabl
Page 5 and 6: ForewordOn February 18-20, 2000, th
Page 7 and 8: Hopefully, this volume will contrib
Page 9 and 10: 5Cross-Cultural Transferabilityof T
Page 11 and 12: Cross-Cultural Transferability of t
Page 31: Cross-Cultural Transferability of t
Page 34 and 35: 30 Nick L. Smith, Saviour Chircop a
Page 46 and 47: 42 Soojung Jangyears. Due to the sc
Page 48 and 49: 44 Soojung JangThis test-based sele
Page 50 and 51: 46 Soojung JangTable 1. Descriptive
Page 52 and 53: 48 Soojung JangU2 Evaluator Credibi
Page 54 and 55: 50 Soojung Janggenerous to foreigne
Page 56 and 57: 52 Soojung Jangfeelings. This partl
Page 58 and 59: 54 Soojung JangReporting Informatio
Page 60 and 61: 56 Soojung JangU4 Values Identifica
Page 62 and 63: 58 Soojung JangReferencesBecker, C.
Page 64 and 65: 60Standards for Evaluation:On the W
Page 66 and 67: 62 Wolfgang BeywlThe advantage of t
Page 68 and 69: 64 Wolfgang BeywlA more direct way
Page 71 and 72: 67Evaluating Evaluations: Does the
Page 73 and 74: Evaluating Evaluations 69Bussmann 1
Page 75 and 76: Evaluating Evaluations 71• Housin
Page 77 and 78: Evaluating Evaluations 73Table 1: C
Page 79 and 80: Evaluating Evaluations 75• Contra
Page 81 and 82: Evaluating Evaluations 77References
Page 83 and 84: Evaluating Evaluations 79Raven, J.
Page 85 and 86: 81Evaluation StandardsRecommended b
Page 87 and 88: Evaluation Standard Recommended by
Page 89 and 90: Evaluation Standard Recommended by
Page 91 and 92:
Evaluation Standard Recommended by
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
103AnnexThe complete list of the or
Page 109:
Annex 105A4 Defensible Information
show all

The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?