The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven

Main Article Content

Stewart I. Donaldson
Christina A. Christie

Abstract

While there is little disagreement about the need for, and value of, program evaluation, there remain major disagreements in the field about best practices. An exchange about the role of randomized control trials in program evaluation practice in educational settings set the stage for the 2004 Claremont Debate. In an effort to seek a deeper understanding of the current dispute, and to possibly discover a middleground or productive resolution, Claremont Graduate University hosted a debate between representatives from both sides. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Donaldson, S. I., & Christie, C. A. (2005). The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v2i3.101
Section
Research Articles

References

Donaldson, S. I., & Lipsey, M. W. (in press). Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge. In I. Shaw, J. Greene, & M. Mark (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation. London: Sage.

Donaldson, S. I., & Scriven, M. (2003). Diverse visions for evaluation in the new millennium: Should we integrate or embrace diversity? In S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium (pp. 3-16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606556

Guiding Principles for Evaluators (1994). New Directions for Program Evaluation (No.66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward a integrative view of the theory and practice of program and policy evaluation. In S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.) Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium (pp. 183-204). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.