Evaluation standards: Comments from Israel

Abstract

The majority of the Standards turn out to be helpful for Israeli evaluators in checking their working plans and reviewing evaluation studies. Nevertheless, the lack of overriding rationale or of theoretical anchors for the Standards creates difficulties in adapting the standards to local situations which are not directly covered in the book. 1. 1. It would be useful to provide a more precise definition about what is a legitimate object of evaluation. In Israel there is an inclination to demand that treatments being evaluated should be theoretically justified and not only pragmatically reasonable. 2. 2. A comprehensive statement about the moral roots or foundations of the ethical standards would facilitate extrapolation to cases that are not specified in the Standards, such as competition for contracts or indirect advertising. 3. 3. Israeli evaluators are not expected to be active in promoting the implementation of their recommendations to the degree suggested by the Standards. The Ministry of Education employs a senior researcher from the academic community in the capacity of chief scientist who serves as a mediator between the academic community and the educational administration. The utilization of study results are mediated through an academic filter operated by the chief scientist. 4. 4. Standards related to research management, data maintenance, and so on provide general guidelines for action, but unlike issues related to ethics, precision, and utility, there should be more precise regulations on what is required. In this area, fully specified bureaucratic procedures should be prescribed. This may be the case in other countries besides Israel.