Intangible Outcomes The Importance and Current Neglect Within Evaluation Practice
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Human life – and therefore the scope of human goals – includes dimensions that are both visible and countable (e.g., money, weight, attendance or tested proficiency) as well the invisible and intangible (e.g., hope, trust, faith, love, joy, peace). Furthermore, the visible and tangible aspects of life are intrinsically connected to and dependent on the invisible and intangible aspects - much as the visible branches and fruit of a tree are connected to and dependent on an underlying and hidden root structure. While the importance of intangibles can be understood intuitively, it can also be illustrated: 73% of all chartable giving in the U.S. goes to organizations that are explicitly religious, and 118,280 nonprofit organizations are so strongly identified with the intangibles of hope, trust, faith, love, joy, peace that they included one of these words in their name. While the intangible realities of human life are explicitly relevant to a large proportion of organizations we seek to serve, it is essentially ignored by current evaluation practice: only 10 articles within the American Journal of Evaluation, New Directions in Evaluation and Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation included even minimal reference to the most common intangibles. New evaluation theory and methodology to address this gap will be needed, and cross-disciplinary exploration with psychology, philosophy and sociology should guide this development. In the meantime, useful questions about intangibles can be drawn from the AEA guiding principles and addressing these can provide a useful starting point for evaluators seeking to consider intangibles within their evaluations.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
American Evaluation Association (2018). Guiding principles for evaluators. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles
Brownhill, S. H., Stevens, G. J., Hammond, T. E., Baldacchino, R., Maposa, R., Makoni, B., Sheb’A, A., Andepalli, J., Kotak, A., D’Souza, O., Atashnama, A., Thayil, A., & Jones, A. (2021). Cultural humility: A collaborative approach to recruiting patients with deliberate self-harm into a multi-hospital randomized controlled trial. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 17(39), 1–14.
Campbell-Patton, C. (2016). [Review of the book Peace education evaluation: Learning from experience and exploring prospects, C. Del Felice, A. Karako, & A. Wisler, eds.] American Journal of Evaluation, 37(4), 580–583.
Clinton, J. (2014). The true impact of evaluation: Motivation for ECB. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(1), 120–127.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2000). Attitude versus aptitude: Is intelligence or motivation more important for positive higher-educational outcomes? Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 58–80.
Datta, L. E. (2009). Golden is the sand: Memory and hope in evaluation policy and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 123, 33–50.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 23.
Donaldson, S. I. (2018). There is more to life than evaluation logic and data: Trusting gut feeling. New Directions for Evaluation, 157, 117–119.
Gallup (2013, December 24). Church attendance today similar to 1940s. https://web.archive.org/web/20140122081705/http://www.gallup.com/video/166598/church-attendance-today-similar-1940s.aspx
Grubbs, S. T. (2009). An evaluation of an alternative teacher certification program a matter of trust. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 581–586.
Jumpstart Labs (2013). Connected to Give: Faith Communities Key Findings from the National Study of American Religious Giving. http://jumpstartlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ConnectedToGive3_FaithCommunities_Jumpstart2014_v1.3.pdf
Mark, M. M., Donaldson, S. I., & Campbell, B. (Eds.). (2011). Social Psychology and Evaluation. Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press.
Robinson, H. (2020). Dualism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
Schulz, J., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J., & Henrich, J. (2018). The origins of WEIRD psychology. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3201031
Scriven, M. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 68, 49–70.
Sechrest, L. (1980). Evaluation researchers: Disciplinary training and identity. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 8, 1–18.
Shackman, G. (2012). Social psychology and evaluation. The Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 132–134.
Sturges, K. M. (2014). External evaluation as contract work: The production of evaluator identity. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 346–363.
Tarsilla, M. (2010). Being blind in a world of multiple perspectives: The evaluator’s dilemma between the hope of becoming a team player and the fear of becoming a critical friend with no friends. The Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 200–205.
Zinsmeister, K. (2019, Winter). Less God, less giving? Religion and generosity feed each other in fascinating ways. Philanthropy Roundtable. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/philanthropy-magazine/less-god-less-giving