In this account of the drafting of the Evaluation Research Society (ERS) Standards, the author notes that the committee was concerned not only with a broad range of evaluation applications, but also with different forms of evaluation. The absence of specificity in the standards reflects the committee's steering between opposing views. (Author/LC)

The variety of contexts, the politics of each situation, and the availability of resources all dictate variations in assessing outcomes. Seven major principles of program evaluation are considered, along with a cautionary note to the ambitious who expect large program effects. (Author)

Our scientific conceptions of evaluation are strongly influenced by underlying, deep-seated metaphors. This analysis draws upon recent philosophic work concerning the role of metaphors in all thought processes. (Author/PN)

What a realistic training program should require, given a broad scope of research methodology, is discussed. Considering the core of evaluation research training, the diversity of methodologies raises issues about what is to be taught and how the involvement of students in actual projects is discussed. (Author/GK)

Standardization is inimical to innovation. Although the function of a standard is to standardize, the Evaluation Research Society (ERS) Standards avoid a standardizing effect. Their contribution lies mostly in the symbolism of their existence: to issue a set of standards is to proclaim maturity of thought for the field. (Author/LC)

The assessment of the outcomes of social programs should always include estimates of the size of the effects produced. Various approaches to this problem are discussed. (Author)

Evaluators experience conflicts between: role of scientist, administrator, and advocate; need for data v privacy; and pressures from clients v broader constituencies. To reduce conflict they must: plan; negotiate ethical work agreements; communicate effectively; and observe the ethical codes of beneficence, respect, and justice. (CP)

Considered fundamentally a scientific enterprise, evaluation research also requires artistic skills. The latter are essential to in-house evaluators, more so than to extrainstitutional evaluators. A training model is suggested. (Author/GK)

In a reflective commentary, the authors address the implications of the fact that, in action settings, implementation and evaluation are often carried on by the same person, and they raise the question, "Should evaluation become implementation?" (PN)

The author, chair of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, compares the Evaluation Research Society (ERS) and Joint Committee Standards and proposes that ERS and the Joint Committee consider merging their standard-setting efforts. (Author/LC)

In focusing on why and how standards might be incorporated into the evaluation process, two themes are explored: the extent to which the Evaluation Research Society (ERS) Standards differ from other recent standards-setting activities and their applicability to local and state-level evaluation efforts. (Author/LC)

Secondary analysis is a situation that argues for explicit training in methodology. Evaluative researchers are often required to extend analysis conducted by original evaluators of a program for reasons of dissatisfaction or incompleteness. (Author/GK)

Certain expectations that federal officials have about evaluation researchers are discussed. Included are: (1) presence of a clear understanding of what evaluation means; (2) procedure for carrying out an evaluation; and (3) understanding by the evaluator of how the research relates to the decision-making process. (Author/GK)

Methods useful in identifying and assessing outcomes of relatively simple programs may not be practical or appropriate for complex programs and systems. Comparative case study methods are recommended for dealing with such global outcomes of planned organizational change. (Author)

Bertram S. Brown, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, discusses conflicts between scientific and value dimensions of evaluation. He relates this conflict to: usefulness of mental health program evaluations; conduct of internal evaluations; release of findings; training; rating of reports; and planned change consultation.…