Summary: Ethics has bearing on what should be done, even when we too rarely apply [name your ethical belief(s) here] in real situations. Ethically speaking,and on the topic of my entry, I think it is wrong for there to be vast differences in individual or group access to the goods of life. Further, I believe that (I'm making a truth claim about ethical practices here) if we behaved efficiently and ethically the good things of life would NOT concentrate in the hands of the few. In this entry I describe how one might try to live up to both the ethical and truth sides of the value/ethic that I have stated.
This entry referencesFourth Generation Evaluation and notes that if its criteria were met, all would benefit from the efficient yet meaningful changes which derive from a well wrought evaluation process.
While Fourth Generation Evaluation (FGE) is applied in a context in which worth and/or process of some system enterprise must be certified or at least examined, its processes can be used as a method to promote multi-stakeholder understanding, evaluation and nurturance of effective system action. As such it could be started at any time, not only when there is a problem.
Generally speaking, however, systems that are actively engaged in normal business rarely allow down-time to inspect for improvement options or the needs for small repairs; thus, discrepancies, inefficiencies and inequities invisibly gather until the sum of their effects disables {or perciptibly disturbs in the eyes of powers-that-be) the system.
Once initiated a Fourth Generation Evaluation (FGE) will, whatever the contracted-for effects, have a consolidating and unifying effect on the system which comes from teaching or reinforming system members concerning the people and processes and structures that make up the system.This teaching and/or reinforming occurs because of FGE processes. (See my paper ExploringThe Authenticity Criteria Of Fourth Generation Evaluation for general details as well as specific steps of the process).
I argue the FGE process to be a mechanism for creating a real solidarity of values and functions, of remaking of critical linkages within and between the subsystems of the total organization. First amongst shareholders, based on rediscovered common understandings and agenda. Subsequently between group solidarity is constructed by articulate representatives of the stakeholding groups. Recycling of "still-dicey" issues is promoted as the final action agenda. Wtih time, skill and patience, coupled with an abhorence of quick "let them eat cake" nonfixes from insulated, detached and probably manipulative upper reaches managers and big-money players, such an evaluation can be successful. It is neither brief nor cheap.
And it must be done well !! In a word, unique to Fourth Generation Evaluation, it must be authentic.
[The following may be read in context by reading my FGE authenticity paper.]
How Do the Authenticity Criteria Support A Successful FGE?
Authentic (Webster's Third New International Dictionary) "stresses fidelity to actuality and fact, compatibility with a certain source or origin, accordance with usage or tradition !=!= or complete sincerity without feigning or hypocrisy."
What reasons will an examination of the authenticity criteria find for their claimed connection to the improvement of the functionality, the wholeness and comfort of a system which commissioned an evaluation ?
I view the authenticity criteria as essential to the evaluand's self-diagnosis and repair - given the assumption that a major portion of the attributes of organizational health are present and that the evaluation process is a temporary special measure, an insight enhancement and energizing device, to enable its restoration of health. The authenticity criteria responsive to the context of organizational dis-ease -- showing the prospect of dealing with a situation in which not only its own learning processes are not up to par but when the organization has declared itself to be unfit to repair itself.
When authenticity criteria obtain are all stakeholders, stakeholding groups, and the system as a whole more likely to behave in an authentic fashion? That is, is it true that, when an evaluation is conducted so as to adhere to authenticity criteria, all members will be most accurately forthcoming with their experiences and most desirous to conceive of and to collaboratively act upon a joint consideration of the collective experience, needs, rules, charter and aspirations of the system?
In short, I believe that conformity with the authenticity criteria, when combined with a well-conducted, multi-layered hermeneutic dialectic process, leads to the construction of synergy within the system, where individual, group and organizational goals and actions have a likelihood of being mutually supporting.
The separate criteria of the authenticity packet, then, are those things which need to be met if a full resolution of system difficulties can be expected. Fairness, for example, must be assured from the beginning in order for an evaluation to "take-off"; conversely,the diagnosis of a clearly ineffective evaluation may well find the taint of unfairness (e.g., active attempts to find and punish those who "testified against" current leadership practices or a clear sabotage of an attempt by parents to negotiate for their claims, concerns and issues or in discussions with teachers, administrators and school board members).
Ontological authenticity attains when each member of each stakeholder group better understands her/his own constructions. If this becomes the case then stakeholder joint constructions and between group joint constructions are better representations !=!= better portraits !=!= and thus joint constructions will be better portraits of the wholes that they represent. Better self-understanding will lead to better self-representation in a group process.
Educational authenticity attains when each member of each stakeholding group understands (can list and explain the basis, the roots for, if not completely agree with) the constructions of other stakeholding groups. The understanding of alternate constructions' roots in experience and values will often depersonalize felt opposition and I suspect increase one's willingness to negotiate and rethink while decreasing the likelihood that opposition provides an immediate "fight or flight" response. Such authenticity increases both compassion for and understanding of alternate world views.
To this point specific actions and processes, those supportive of each aspect of authenticity, can be observed to be present or absent as they relate to the criterion of concern. In the case of catalytic authenticity I find myself believing that, "Yes, all parties should be moved to take action on behalf of joint constructions" but can find only the speculation that the likelihood that stakeholders will take action is in direct proportion to the proportion of the sets of contending constructions which were reconstructed and consensually endorsed as joint constructions. While this seems to be a plausible interpretation, it was not directly a Guba & Lincoln argument for this criterion.
Finally, and in contrast, tactical authenticity -- the empowerment of stakeholders to act both during and subsequent to the evaluation process itself !=!= can more easily, I think, be observed. During the evaluation itself it will be obvious that actions on behalf of the evaluation, rather than normal system purposes, will be empowered or blocked or punished. Similarly the actions, structures, processes, etc. which are direct implications of joint constructions and not of pre-evaluation state of the system will be empowered (i.e. allowed, encouraged, funded, rewarded, etc.) or not. No particularly subtle reasoning is necessary to find a basis for supporting actions which "fall out of" the new consensual reality of the evaluand. To the extent that those changes are resisted, on the one hand, is the extent that "old system" inertia outweighs or overpowers evaluation understandings and energy. In other words, if the consensual joint constructions are now system culture !=!= and not evaluation artifacts which exit with the exiting evaluators !=!= then system players will be encouraged, no, required to pursue them with great energy. To that extent, then, the change is genuine !=!= authentic.
What is believed to be the basis for the authenticity criteria?
A Summary, so far. We have taken the position that the evaluand is under -performing and perceives itself to be needy. It perceives its environmental vulnerability and as a consequence submits to a Fourth Generation Evaluation -- a set of transactions requiring participation in a comprehensive hermeneutic dialectic process as constrained by the authenticity criteria. The pay-off of the evaluation itself is a set of reconstructions which are consensually accepted. The pay off for the evaluand as an organization is the set of more effective environmental (internal and external) behaviors, the expectation being that such success is more likely given a set of consensual constructions which in turn allow the organization to act as a single entity rather than an awkward collection of fragments. (While unified behavior is not sufficient to guarantee successful environmental responses-- if the unified behavior is also informed and sophisticated, then it is quite likely to bring a satisfactory degree of environmental success. Far more success, at any rate, than the set of thoughts distributed and acted upon in a haphazard and self-canceling manner.) Joint constructions are the key, a necessary component of successful organizational behavior.
How, then, do the hermeneutic dialectic circle and the authenticity criteria relate to the production of the joint constructions? The circle process plus the organizational and evaluator behaviors which are responsive to the authenticity criteria operate together to help surface the authentic yet contending CC&I (Claims, Concerns and Issues) of first individual, then stakeholding groups and, finally, through the negotiation process, the evaluand as-a-whole. Constructions are first informed and then sophisticated via interactions with facilitators, fellow stakeholders and the summarized constructions from the literature and from other stakeholding groups. Finally, in the negotiation process representatives work with the evaluation team to assemble reconstructions which are responsive to the CC&I of all groups. Those reconstructions that are assembled will serve as a basis for action. That action will be on behalf of the unified (through joint constructions) and authentic organization.
The authenticity criteria are positive statements to guide facilitators and stakeholders alike as they work to counteract their own and others' reactive participation (driven by past beliefs, values, fears, etc., rather than the present situation). The presence of evaluation processes which embody fairness will tend to eliminate the fear and apathy that influence individuals as they attempt to interact with those with entrenched and comprehensive organizational powers (e.g., principal, manager, department head, gatekeepers, opinion leaders, and so on).
Ontological authenticity develops as individuals move from habituated constructions to those about which they can reason and argue with the understanding that their own constructions might 'drive' the organization and influence all of its stakeholders. Educative authenticity can occur once a stakeholding group finds a basis for agreement within itself; from that platform it can move, via effective and creative facilitative efforts, to understand the values and constructions of other stakeholding groups. Catalytic authenticity is a symbol that authentic constructions are energizing because they represent both one's own beliefs as well as being discovered to be the basis for others CC&I as well. The tactical authenticity criterion is meant to elicit the formulation of constructions which can not only be agreed to by all but which clearly articulate with the action 'wing' of the organization.
