In 1980, the decade perilously poised to lose disco and win pin-striped jeans and the bubble skirt, Ernie House published his book Evaluating with Validity (a handful of free chapters available for download). In it he introduced the criteria by which evaluators with an activist conviction and aesthetic sensibility should judge the quality of their own work: Beauty, Truth and Justice (in ascending order of importance). I care about them all of course, but I’m currently contemplating beauty, which is scarce in our product.
Ernie House argued for the integrated and coherent presentation of evidence. Integrity of evidence is not enough. It’s package must be compelling. Precise prose is essential, but elegance is its equal. Beautiful writing is worthy in and of itself, but more importantly it has the power to impress; and aren’t we endlessly anxious about the use of what we produce?
“… the evidence of history is clear that the
research studies with the greatest impact in
psychology are breathtakingly simple in
terms of the questions posed, the methods
and designs used, the statistics brought to
bear on the data, and the take-home
messages.
Simple does not mean simplistic. Nor does
it mean easy or quick. Rather, simple
means elegant, clear and accessible, not
just to other researchers but to the general
public. No one‟s eyes glaze over when
hearing about a high-impact study. No one
feels stupid. No one asks, ‘And your point
is?’‟ – Peterson & Park
I like to believe that Ernie House was invoking the ethic of natural science in the guise of literature, a literary science. Or a literarily presented science. A form that was conventional 200 years ago and necessary today. Download House, and enjoy.
Benita Williams
May 30, 2011 - 11:20 am
Beauty, Truth and Justice… We heard a lot about that during last year’s AEA conference with the topic: “Evaluation Quality” as the conference theme.
It focused on questions such as:
* How is evaluation quality conceptualized and operationalized?
* How do we ensure evaluation quality in our practice?
* How do our evaluations embrace and inform truth? beauty? justice?
* How do we balance dimensions of evaluation quality when they seem in opposition to one another?
* What are the forms and uses of metaevaluation?
* How do evaluation policies support or undermine evaluation quality?
* What is the role of context in evaluation quality?
http://www.eval.org/eval2010/default.asp