Continues the exploration of the effective use and misuse of performance indicators that has been conducted by various authors in this journal. Identifies some further limitations on the use of performance measurement and notes that many performance measurement undertakings make no provision for evaluating the impact of the undertakings…

Summarizes the points made by M. Scriven and adds some evaluative comments by the present author. Scriven's notion of minimalist evaluation is given a strong "thumbs-up," but his definition of evaluation receives a "thumbs-down" for not standing up to close scrutiny. The checklist methodology Scriven proposes is endorsed enthusiastically. (SLD)

Reviews a collection of 10 case descriptions of ethical problems in evaluation and 10 commentaries on them that appeared in the "American Journal of Evaluation" from 1998 to 2001. Explores the meaning of "ethical problems" and the relationship of ethics to best practices. (SLD)

The main points made by C. H. Weiss are reviewed, focusing on several ideas that have lead to the preliminary conceptualization of a theory of evaluation use. The social ecological theory of evaluation use developed is presented that sets forth conditions that result in increased evaluation use. (SLD)

Discusses the evaluation by Margaret Mead of the first Salzburg Seminar, an educational initiative undertaken to increase global understanding by broadening the perspectives of future leaders. Also describes Mead's evaluation methods. (SLD)

Comments on the evaluation by Margaret Mead of the first Salzburg Seminar (1947). Notes the strength and clarity of Mead's evaluation report, which was written without the aid of the many tools on which today's evaluators draw. (SLD)

Comments on two articles related to ethical challenges in evaluation and a series of articles on the subject published in the "American Journal of Evaluation" between 1998 and 2001. Considers the problems of ethical challenges in the context of principles and standards for evaluation developed by professional associations. (SLD)

Suggests a strategy for dealing with the situation in which evaluators wish to ask teenage participants in a life skills program questions that might be seen as controversial. The strategy relies on an inclusive planning committee, a low-key poll to provide background information, and a foot in the door opening to start the process. (SLD)

Discusses Margaret Mead's evaluation of the first Salzburg Seminar (1947), a forum for international exchange of intellectual ideas and cultural customs. Concludes that Mead's evaluation was highly successful in that it created an evocative representation of the seminar that told readers what it was like for its participants. (SLD)

Introduces the 21 papers in this special issue on the future of evaluation. These articles suggest a field that is more eclectic in methods, approaches, and practitioners than was the field described in a similar issue in 1994. (SLD)

Identifies strengths and weaknesses of the study of the Comprehensive Child Development Program and draws evaluative conclusions based on the analysis. Cites lack of stakeholder involvement and pilot studies as a weaknesses of the evaluation but notes the general quality of the effort. (SLD)

Reviews the conclusions drawn in articles in this special issue and comments on some of the major themes, including paradigm debates, context issues, the role of evaluators and evaluation, the performance measurement movement, and the impact of new technologies on evaluation. (SLD)

Chelimsky, former head of the Program Evaluation and Methodology Division of the General Accounting Office, suggested that advocacy by evaluators destroys their credibility. Evaluators should, this author argues, be advocates for democracy and the public interest, with the question being how explicitly and how defensibly. (SLD)

Poses questions stimulated by Professor Stanfield's essay that evaluators must ask to ensure the equity of evaluations. The questions include examinations of the effects of racism on understanding and action and how program outcomes and evaluative judgments are conditioned by racially shaped assumptions, presumptions, and politics. (SLD)

Discusses the inappropriate racial categorizations of minorities that have routinely infected evaluations and social research. By adhering to principles of democracy and including minorities as participants in dialogue, evaluators can avoid such damaging effects in their work. (Author/SLD)