Humanizing human rights evaluation: Integrating human rights principles to maintain methodological rigor, axiological commitments, and epistemic justice

Q2 Social Sciences
Giovanni P. Dazzo
{"title":"Humanizing human rights evaluation: Integrating human rights principles to maintain methodological rigor, axiological commitments, and epistemic justice","authors":"Giovanni P. Dazzo","doi":"10.1002/ev.20528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What evaluation criteria are appropriate to assess the relevance and efficacy of rights‐based initiatives? In this chapter, the author argues that evaluations of rights‐based programs must themselves espouse human rights principles, and methodological decisions must be assessed against these principles. The design and implementation of the evaluation must thereby promote the dignity, liberty, and equality for and of participants. Against these criteria, top‐down evaluation approaches are often inappropriate or insufficient for the evaluation of rights‐based programs. The chapter discusses how many evaluations use top‐down mechanisms, and then—through critical self‐reflection in case studies—assesses how three evaluations either did or could have benefited from infusing rights‐based principles within design and implementation.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Directions for Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

What evaluation criteria are appropriate to assess the relevance and efficacy of rights‐based initiatives? In this chapter, the author argues that evaluations of rights‐based programs must themselves espouse human rights principles, and methodological decisions must be assessed against these principles. The design and implementation of the evaluation must thereby promote the dignity, liberty, and equality for and of participants. Against these criteria, top‐down evaluation approaches are often inappropriate or insufficient for the evaluation of rights‐based programs. The chapter discusses how many evaluations use top‐down mechanisms, and then—through critical self‐reflection in case studies—assesses how three evaluations either did or could have benefited from infusing rights‐based principles within design and implementation.
人权评估的人性化:整合人权原则以保持方法的严谨性、价值论的承诺和认识的公正性
什么样的评估标准适合评估基于权利的举措的相关性和有效性?在本章中,作者认为,对基于权利的方案的评估本身必须支持人权原则,并且必须根据这些原则评估方法决策。因此,评估的设计和实施必须促进参与者的尊严、自由和平等。根据这些标准,自上而下的评估方法通常不适合或不足以评估基于权利的项目。本章讨论了有多少评估使用自上而下的机制,然后通过案例研究中的批判性自我反思,评估了三项评估是如何在设计和实施中融入基于权利的原则的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Directions for Evaluation
New Directions for Evaluation Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信