Editors' Notes

As charter members of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) and being active in its predecessor organizations, we have an extensive history of discussing, reviewing, debating, and wondering about accreditation, certification, and credentialing (ACC). We are long-term collaborators (over 34 years) who have been involved continuously in presenting and writing about the preparation of evaluators and certification. In the early 1990s as an AEA board member, Engle recruited (cajoled, actually) Altschuld to lead a new directory of evaluation preparation programs. This effort led to a New Directions in Program Evaluation (now New Directions for Evaluation [NDE]) issue (No. 62) published in 1994. We note this earlier result because it relates to the current issue. The first coeditor was communicating with the NDE Editor-in-Chief about an issue on needs assessment (Engle is a contributor to it). In that conversation, it was mentioned that she and I were recommended for an update to the 1994 publication focusing on the interconnected ideas of ACC. Wow! What an opportunity to reconsider a topic that was done two decades ago, especially given the vastly changing context of the practice of evaluation, the theoretical understandings of it, and what has happened and is happening with professional organizations. We were delighted to be thought of for the task and the rest of the story is, as they say, “history.” This issue is not an update of the 1994 effort, nor is it intended to be: its focus is on interconnecting and dissecting ideas relative to ACC. We wanted to take a fresh look at them and we wanted our chapter authors to do the same thing. To that end, we assembled a diverse group of individuals with unique viewpoints to be our writers. We debated how to start the current journey and felt that looking into ACC necessitated placing the three components in the historical context of how evaluation has evolved in the United States since the 1960s. We are not advocating for ACC; rather, we illuminate what their nature is and how past and current conditions have influenced thinking about them. We see the three parts of ACC as interrelated, and as critically important to any discussion of our field. We start the discussion of the historical context by creating a timeline from the 1960s to the present (although we are sure that some events are omitted, making this a personal expression of history, not an actual one). This is the core content in Chapter 1 (“The Inexorable Historical Press of the Developing Evaluation Profession”) written by us. In what ways do the past and the present inform and guide us relative to ACC? The chapter also contains definitions of terms and how changes in evaluation have affected ACC. Having set the stage, we challenged our authors to go beyond simply providing an update of what is going on at present; we asked them to delve into the subtle and problematic concerns that are part of all the components of ACC. They were up to the responsibility, and we are grateful for their openness and willingness to accept this charge without flinching. The focus of Chapter 2 (“Competencies for Program Evaluators in Light of Adaptive Action: What? So What? Now What?”), by Jean A. King and Laurie Stevahn, addresses the competencies that define evaluators. This is a tricky consideration, and an ACC issue without it would certainly miss the mark. These two authors, along with others, have been studying competencies (and competent practice) for nearly 15 years and are known throughout the world for their publications and in-depth research and thinking about this area. They have done an excellent job of dealing with concepts, examining salient research, and then raising questions that force evaluators to be more thoughtful in regard to specifying what they bring to the table via their services to programs and projects. With this backdrop of competencies, it would seem a simple matter to describe the educational environment necessary for evaluators. Put simply, “Where do individuals acquire the skills and culture of the professional evaluator?” We knew the answer wasn't straightforward and sought out John M. LaVelle and Stewart I. Donaldson for preparing Chapter 3 (“The State of Preparing Evaluators”). In the past few years they have been conducting research about the nature of programs at universities and just recently completed another study. But like everything else in the field, preparation is now extensively offered in many venues other than academia. What does the educational picture look like and what might it become in the near future? The landscape they draw for us opens vistas to a quite complex scene. What role does or should accreditation play in the ACC scenario was the question posed to James C. McDavid and Irene Huse for Chapter 4 (“How Does Accreditation Fit Into the Picture?”). McDavid and Huse are Canadians who authored a major text on evaluation and who were instrumental in writing the 2006 literature review that was the underpinning of the 2009 Canadian Evaluation Society's Credentialed Evaluator Designation system for program evaluators. With expanding educational and employment options, the field must be concerned with accreditation of evaluator preparation programs. How should evaluation as a budding profession go about ensuring their validity and quality? This consideration was raised by AEA in the 1990s and is as meaningful now as it was then. McDavid and Huse's vast knowledge of the field gets us closer to a response. As briefly mentioned above, Canada initiated a system that is becoming known to many evaluators in the United States and in the world. It could be a standard or benchmark from which U.S. evaluators could benefit and grow. Keiko Kuji-Shikatani, who has been active in the implementation of that system, graciously agreed to describe where things are at the present time, as well as what has been learned about dos and don'ts. This is the substance of Chapter 5 (“Credentialed Evaluator Designation Program, the Canadian Experience”). This chapter should be looked at in terms of what might or might not be applicable to U.S. evaluators and to our national organization (AEA). Put in a nutshell, “Does it make sense for us?” “Evaluator Certification and Credentialing Revisited: A Survey of American Evaluation Association Members in the United States” is the title of Chapter 6 by Michelle Baron Seidling. The coeditors of this issue and several of the chapter authors were part of an AEA panel organized by Seidling for the 2012 annual meeting. From that discussion evolved a current national survey on certification (to be compared to the one done by Jones and Worthen [1999]). Results of the new survey were mixed without a clear mandate for either certifying or credentialing. What are the members’ views? What do they think about ACC? Has opinion changed since the original work was done and, if so, in what ways? What guidance could/would this provide to AEA? The results are interesting and provocative. Chapter 7, “Accreditation, Certification, and Credentialing: Does It Help?,” represents a difficult undertaking. We wanted an independent voice to look at the overall proposition of accreditation, credentialing, and certification. Arguments can readily be raised about moving forward or doing nothing at all. Thinking about ACC, the profession has survived, even thrived, by doing nothing. An independent thinker was needed to critically analyze what the chapter authors have explained and to give some thoughtful conclusions about what they have provided. We chose Gene Shackman based on his reputation for following his own drummer. He has clearly done so and it is appreciated. It was and remains our goal to encourage and expand the discussion on ACC but not to advocate for or against any of the three. If this issue of New Directions expands discourse and deliberation, then we have achieved what we intended personally and professionally. Please join us in the journey. James W. Altschuld is professor emeritus at the College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University. Molly Engle is a professor at the College of Education and evaluation specialist at Oregon State University Extension Service.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.