前言:论“价值”

Q2 Social Sciences
Liz Gould
{"title":"前言:论“价值”","authors":"Liz Gould","doi":"10.1177/1035719X19895150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Writing in 2001 in the American Journal of Evaluation, Ernest House suggested a key piece of ‘unfinished business’ in evaluation should be reconfigured – the fact/value dichotomy (House, 2001). This special issue of the Evaluation Journal of Australasia revisits aspects of this ‘unfinished business’, centring on this and other matters of ‘values’ further investigated by various theorists (Gates, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Henry, 2002; House & Howe, 1999; Renger & Bourdeau, 2004). Authors in this special issue tackle difficult and intricate philosophical challenges relating to ‘valuing’ and ‘values’ in evaluation, as well as implications for practising evaluators. This issue does not lay out a singular definition of ‘values’ in evaluation. As others have noted, the concept of values has been explored in various disciplines – economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and biology – ranging from concepts of ‘value’ as a product that is exchanged (e.g., for money); as functional or having utility; as culturally defined; deriving from scarcity or competition; an aesthetic which is relative or subjective; deriving from ethical choices; and so on. Indeed, there may be some utility in aspects of these approaches for evaluators, as posited by authors in this issue. So why does reflecting on ‘values’ matter for evaluators? How might we understand ‘values’ in appraising aspects of health, education or other social programmes, for example? And how might we understand ‘values’ in subjective concepts such as ‘wellbeing’? The significance of values to practitioners is a key area of investigation in this special issue. Authors were invited to present differing applications of ‘values’ in their own evaluative thinking and practice. Readers and evaluators are similarly encouraged to reflect on how values shape your thinking about evaluation and what values shape your evaluative practice. Judgements about value may assign ‘importance’: in what we focus on or exclude, through selection decisions (or biases), prioritisation of issues, privileging of some perspectives over others, and measurement choices. Values influence practice – from the evaluative questions we ask, the theories of change we consider, the objectives we aim for, the programme logics we develop, the methods we choose, the practices we employ, the stakeholders we identify, the views we gather, the findings we deem credible or significant and so on. The inspiration for this special issue came out of the Australian Evaluation Society’s 2018 conference and ensuing discussions, where the issue guest editors – Keryn, Mathea, Kelly and Amy – presented on topics relating to ‘values’. A special issue of 895150 EVJ0010.1177/1035719X19895150Evaluation Journal of Australasia X(X)Gould editorial2019","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"19 1","pages":"157 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X19895150","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreword: On ‘values’\",\"authors\":\"Liz Gould\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719X19895150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Writing in 2001 in the American Journal of Evaluation, Ernest House suggested a key piece of ‘unfinished business’ in evaluation should be reconfigured – the fact/value dichotomy (House, 2001). This special issue of the Evaluation Journal of Australasia revisits aspects of this ‘unfinished business’, centring on this and other matters of ‘values’ further investigated by various theorists (Gates, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Henry, 2002; House & Howe, 1999; Renger & Bourdeau, 2004). Authors in this special issue tackle difficult and intricate philosophical challenges relating to ‘valuing’ and ‘values’ in evaluation, as well as implications for practising evaluators. This issue does not lay out a singular definition of ‘values’ in evaluation. As others have noted, the concept of values has been explored in various disciplines – economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and biology – ranging from concepts of ‘value’ as a product that is exchanged (e.g., for money); as functional or having utility; as culturally defined; deriving from scarcity or competition; an aesthetic which is relative or subjective; deriving from ethical choices; and so on. Indeed, there may be some utility in aspects of these approaches for evaluators, as posited by authors in this issue. So why does reflecting on ‘values’ matter for evaluators? How might we understand ‘values’ in appraising aspects of health, education or other social programmes, for example? And how might we understand ‘values’ in subjective concepts such as ‘wellbeing’? The significance of values to practitioners is a key area of investigation in this special issue. Authors were invited to present differing applications of ‘values’ in their own evaluative thinking and practice. Readers and evaluators are similarly encouraged to reflect on how values shape your thinking about evaluation and what values shape your evaluative practice. Judgements about value may assign ‘importance’: in what we focus on or exclude, through selection decisions (or biases), prioritisation of issues, privileging of some perspectives over others, and measurement choices. Values influence practice – from the evaluative questions we ask, the theories of change we consider, the objectives we aim for, the programme logics we develop, the methods we choose, the practices we employ, the stakeholders we identify, the views we gather, the findings we deem credible or significant and so on. The inspiration for this special issue came out of the Australian Evaluation Society’s 2018 conference and ensuing discussions, where the issue guest editors – Keryn, Mathea, Kelly and Amy – presented on topics relating to ‘values’. A special issue of 895150 EVJ0010.1177/1035719X19895150Evaluation Journal of Australasia X(X)Gould editorial2019\",\"PeriodicalId\":37231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"157 - 158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X19895150\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X19895150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X19895150","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: 0

摘要

2001年,欧内斯特·豪斯在《美国评估杂志》上撰文,建议重新配置评估中“未完成的任务”的一个关键部分——事实/价值二分法(House,2001)。《澳大拉西亚评估杂志》的这期特刊重新审视了这一“未完成的事业”的各个方面,重点是这一问题和其他由各种理论家进一步调查的“价值观”问题(Gates,2018;Hall等人,2012年;亨利,2002年;豪斯和豪,1999年;伦格和布尔多,2004年)。本期特刊的作者解决了与评估中的“价值”和“价值观”相关的困难和复杂的哲学挑战,以及对实践评估者的启示。这个问题并没有对评估中的“价值观”做出单一的定义。正如其他人所指出的,价值观的概念已经在经济学、哲学、心理学、社会学和生物学等多个学科中得到了探索,从“价值”作为一种交换产品(如货币)的概念;作为功能性的或具有实用性的;按照文化定义;源自稀缺或竞争;一种相对的或主观的美学;源自道德选择;事实上,正如作者在本期文章中所提出的那样,这些方法在某些方面可能对评估者有用。那么,为什么反思“价值观”对评估者来说很重要呢?例如,我们如何理解评估健康、教育或其他社会计划方面的“价值观”?我们如何理解“幸福”等主观概念中的“价值观”?价值观对从业者的意义是本期特刊的一个关键研究领域。作者被邀请在他们自己的评价思维和实践中展示“价值观”的不同应用。同样鼓励读者和评估者反思价值观如何塑造你的评估思维,以及什么价值观塑造你的评价实践。对价值的判断可能会赋予“重要性”:通过选择决策(或偏见)、问题的优先顺序、某些观点对其他观点的优先权以及衡量选择,我们关注或排除的内容。价值观影响实践——从我们提出的评估问题、我们考虑的变革理论、我们的目标、我们制定的计划逻辑、我们选择的方法、我们采用的实践、我们确定的利益相关者、我们收集的观点、我们认为可信或重要的发现等等。本期特刊的灵感来自澳大利亚评估协会2018年的会议和随后的讨论,本期客座编辑Keryn、Mathea、Kelly和Amy就“价值观”相关主题进行了介绍。895150 EVJ0010.1177/1035719X19895150澳大利亚评估杂志X(X)Gould编辑2019特刊
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foreword: On ‘values’
Writing in 2001 in the American Journal of Evaluation, Ernest House suggested a key piece of ‘unfinished business’ in evaluation should be reconfigured – the fact/value dichotomy (House, 2001). This special issue of the Evaluation Journal of Australasia revisits aspects of this ‘unfinished business’, centring on this and other matters of ‘values’ further investigated by various theorists (Gates, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Henry, 2002; House & Howe, 1999; Renger & Bourdeau, 2004). Authors in this special issue tackle difficult and intricate philosophical challenges relating to ‘valuing’ and ‘values’ in evaluation, as well as implications for practising evaluators. This issue does not lay out a singular definition of ‘values’ in evaluation. As others have noted, the concept of values has been explored in various disciplines – economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and biology – ranging from concepts of ‘value’ as a product that is exchanged (e.g., for money); as functional or having utility; as culturally defined; deriving from scarcity or competition; an aesthetic which is relative or subjective; deriving from ethical choices; and so on. Indeed, there may be some utility in aspects of these approaches for evaluators, as posited by authors in this issue. So why does reflecting on ‘values’ matter for evaluators? How might we understand ‘values’ in appraising aspects of health, education or other social programmes, for example? And how might we understand ‘values’ in subjective concepts such as ‘wellbeing’? The significance of values to practitioners is a key area of investigation in this special issue. Authors were invited to present differing applications of ‘values’ in their own evaluative thinking and practice. Readers and evaluators are similarly encouraged to reflect on how values shape your thinking about evaluation and what values shape your evaluative practice. Judgements about value may assign ‘importance’: in what we focus on or exclude, through selection decisions (or biases), prioritisation of issues, privileging of some perspectives over others, and measurement choices. Values influence practice – from the evaluative questions we ask, the theories of change we consider, the objectives we aim for, the programme logics we develop, the methods we choose, the practices we employ, the stakeholders we identify, the views we gather, the findings we deem credible or significant and so on. The inspiration for this special issue came out of the Australian Evaluation Society’s 2018 conference and ensuing discussions, where the issue guest editors – Keryn, Mathea, Kelly and Amy – presented on topics relating to ‘values’. A special issue of 895150 EVJ0010.1177/1035719X19895150Evaluation Journal of Australasia X(X)Gould editorial2019
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
Evaluation Journal of Australasia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
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