Probative, dialectic, and moral reasoning in program evaluation

Current idealized evaluation practices are often modeled on a probative, criteria and standards-based approach endorsed by Michael Scriven. The authors find this logical, rule-governed approach insufficient for most program evaluations. By focusing on more technical aspects of the evaluand and the evaluative process, important and valid evaluand characteristics and stakeholder viewpoints can be lost or marginalized. The authors believe a dialectical evaluation process will generate fuller representations of quality while also treating the evaluand as more than simply a technical object. In this article, the authors summarize the probative evaluation approach, discuss aspects of moral reasoning that may limit this standards-based model, and propose an alternative dialectical persuasion.