Equity “On the Sideline”

Emily F. Gates, Eric Williamson, Joseph Madres, Kayla Benitez Alvarez, J. Hall
{"title":"Equity “On the Sideline”","authors":"Emily F. Gates, Eric Williamson, Joseph Madres, Kayla Benitez Alvarez, J. Hall","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v18i42.715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Centering equity in evaluations is increasingly recognized as an important professional responsibility of evaluators. While some theoretical and practical guidance exists, the evaluation field has limited empirical research on equity within evaluation practice. \nPurpose: This paper explores whether and how evaluators address inequities and advance equity throughout evaluation phases drawing on select findings from a larger study. \nSetting: The study focuses on American Evaluation Association-affiliated evaluators in the New England region of the United States who work in a variety of areas (e.g., health, education).   \nIntervention: Not applicable \nResearch Design: The study uses a complementarity, sequential mixed methods design comprised of a researcher-developed online questionnaire administered to a census and snowball sample of practicing evaluators (n=82) and individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of this sample selected to maximize variation (n=21). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard deviations, frequencies). Qualitative data were analyzed using a collaborative process of deductive and inductive coding followed by thematic analysis. \nFindings: Eight overarching findings suggest that despite evaluators’ attempts to center equity, it remains largely “on the sideline.” This is due to evaluators’ need to work against some conventional professional and methodological norms, within contractual and contextual constraints, and with limited professional preparation. \n ","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v18i42.715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Centering equity in evaluations is increasingly recognized as an important professional responsibility of evaluators. While some theoretical and practical guidance exists, the evaluation field has limited empirical research on equity within evaluation practice. Purpose: This paper explores whether and how evaluators address inequities and advance equity throughout evaluation phases drawing on select findings from a larger study. Setting: The study focuses on American Evaluation Association-affiliated evaluators in the New England region of the United States who work in a variety of areas (e.g., health, education).   Intervention: Not applicable Research Design: The study uses a complementarity, sequential mixed methods design comprised of a researcher-developed online questionnaire administered to a census and snowball sample of practicing evaluators (n=82) and individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of this sample selected to maximize variation (n=21). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard deviations, frequencies). Qualitative data were analyzed using a collaborative process of deductive and inductive coding followed by thematic analysis. Findings: Eight overarching findings suggest that despite evaluators’ attempts to center equity, it remains largely “on the sideline.” This is due to evaluators’ need to work against some conventional professional and methodological norms, within contractual and contextual constraints, and with limited professional preparation.  
股权“在边线上”
背景:以公平为中心的评价越来越被认为是评价人员的一项重要职业责任。尽管存在一些理论和实践指导,但评估领域在评估实践中对公平性的实证研究有限。目的:本文探讨了评估人员是否以及如何利用一项大型研究的精选结果,在整个评估阶段解决不公平问题,促进公平。背景:这项研究的重点是美国新英格兰地区的美国评估协会下属评估人员,他们在各个领域工作(如健康、教育)。干预:不适用的研究设计:该研究使用了一种互补的、顺序混合的方法设计,包括研究人员开发的在线问卷,对实践评估者的人口普查和滚雪球样本(n=82)进行管理,以及对该样本的一个子集进行个人半结构化访谈,以最大限度地提高差异(n=21)。使用描述性统计(即平均值和标准差、频率)对定量数据进行分析。定性数据采用演绎和归纳编码的协同过程进行分析,然后进行主题分析。调查结果:八项总体调查结果表明,尽管评估人员试图以公平为中心,但它在很大程度上仍然“处于次要地位”。这是因为评估人员需要在合同和上下文约束下,在有限的专业准备下,对照一些传统的专业和方法规范进行工作。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信