Social Ontology and Evaluation—A Comment on “Framing Evaluation in Reality: An Introduction to Ontologically Integrative Evaluation”

According to Jennifer Billman, western evaluation bias against indigenous thinking is due to ontological incompetence. If so, the solution she offers (a highly abstract list of criteria) is inadequate since it fails to address let alone resolve a wide range of philosophical dilemmas at the intersection of logic and ontology. Furthermore, it fails to “frame evaluation in reality” since it ignores the patent fact that, in the market society, positivist evaluators dominate. They are value free, embrace a “clockwork” conception of the natural and social world, and do not question decision makers' goals. By contrast, constructivist evaluators recognize that social facts differ from natural facts since they are socially constructed and clustered within institutions that define roles, norms and expectations. It follows that constructivist evaluation holds the key to the problem identified by Billman since it resists capture by vested interests, gives pride of place to the relational context and embraces the validity of indigenous thinking.