Affiliation:
1. College of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of Maryland, 2115 Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742,
Abstract
In this paper I present an argument supporting the position that AEA should not undertake a certification or similar process at the present time, even though I believe the public needs some type of protection from unscrupulous and incompetent evaluators. The problems a certification process would solve have not been substantiated; the public may not support such an endeavor; “evaluation” is not clearly defined, which means the knowledge and skills (K/S) unique to its practice and performance criteria are not agreed upon; and the process for putting a certification system into place is a very complex and costly undertaking (e.g., ensuring the accuracy and integrity of determining who does and does not have the requisite K/S and who is applying them in an effective manner). In addition, certification would require establishing some way to decertify incompetent practitioners, and being able to defend all of these actions when there is disagreement and even litigation. I believe that AEA is not likely to be able to do these things in an effective manner, in the near future.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Sociology and Political Science,Education,Health(social science),Social Psychology,Business and International Management
Reference20 articles.
1. American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluation. (1995). In W.R. Shadish, D.L. Newman, M.A. Scheirer, & C. Wye, (Eds.) Guiding principles for evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66, 19-26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Certification—beyond reason. Please don't certify me, doctor, i'm on a roll
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献