In this interview, I speak with Amy Gullickson, acting Co-Director and Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Program Evaluation at Melbourne Graduate School of Education. She is also Chair of the International Society for Evaluation Education. We talk about what is the best definition of evaluation and why it is important to have a clear definition. Amy also gives us some of her specific resources for people just starting to learn evaluation.











Listen to the podcast episode here: 











What is Amy’s definition of evaluation?
Amy explained that it’s important for us to think about the implications of the definition. She does that in detail in her article titled, The Whole Elephant: Defining Evaluation.
She indicates that evaluation is the generation of a credible and systematic determination of merit, worth, and/or significance of an object through the application of defensible criteria and standards to demonstrably relevant empirical facts.
Amy states that it is the implications of the definitions that are important – it’s worth exploring what you (or your clients, or stakeholders) think evaluation is. That will shape what they expect you to deliver, and what may or may not be appropriate.
Amy believes a definition of evaluation must include valuation. This is our task as evaluators and has been overshadowed by social science research. We’ve got much work to do to become as informed (and have as much empirical evidence about what good looks like) in our valuation practice as we are in our research practice.
 
 
Why Amy thinks it’s important to have a clear definition of evaluation
People often think evaluation and research are the same things. Amy talks to me about why it is clear to understand the difference and have a clear definition. Amy gives an example, if you are trying to find the value of p (probability of a type I error), how big was the change? But evaluation asks, “so what?” Did it actually reach the people that are most important? Was it big enough to make a difference? Does that p value actually mean anything?
The task defines the knowledge, skills, and attributes that are necessary to accomplish it. If evaluation is just applied social science, then there’s no need to have skills and knowledge related to valuation.
Amy thinks this is a significant flaw in common evaluation practice. You might not get to summative judgment every time (and for good reasons- it might not be appropriate to do so), but if we take the valuation process out of the definition, then we are allowing the implicit values of the most powerful to determine what good is, what evidence is. Then we become complicit in upholding systems that oppress the global majority, in effect, giving our blessing to programs and systems that actually create harm. Amy explains this is exactly counter to what most people say they aspire to when they engage in evaluation.
 
 
How Amy believes evaluator competencies relate to how someone might define evaluation
Most competency sets have more than 60 competencies (Amy tells us the Australian Evaluation Society has 94). Canada has decided that anyone who can demonstrate an acceptable level of skill on a percentage in each domain can be credentialed as an evaluator.