“Every action or perceived inaction shapes credibility.” – Mindy Hall

“Belief gives knowledge credibility.” – Steven Redhead

“Lack of credibility slays your character” – Bernard Kelvin Clive

  “It takes a lot of effort to win back credibility after having lost it so heavily.”     – Giorgio Napolitano

Establishing and maintaining credibility is essential to the livelihood and success of any evaluator (American, 2011; Laureate, 2012; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). If an evaluator’s credibility is jeopardized, stakeholders may not trust the evaluator, evaluation findings could be questioned and disregarded, and the evaluator’s career may be in jeopardy.

Take, for example, Mr. John Doe, an educational consultant, who is invited to Changing Directions Elementary School to conduct an external evaluation about the instructional programming and effectiveness by first year principal who is concerned because over half of the students are not performing at grade level in English and math. Mr. Doe begins his process by viewing the school’s website to learn about the school’s mission, vision, and programming. He arranges a meeting with the new principal; arranges for surveys to be administered to students and plans; and plans time to observe and meet with teachers. Changing Directions is a small school with six teachers and 90 students, so Mr. Doe plans to spend three days on-site conducting the evaluation. Unfortunately, the evaluation doesn’t go as planned and due to inclement weather, Mr. Doe is only able to spend two days at the school during which time he is able to observe instruction in all of the classroom, meet with principals, and get completed surveys from the students. Only two parents return their surveys, and Mr. Doe isn’t able to interview the teachers. Mr. Doe tries to reschedule his visit to the school but continued inclement weather inhibits him from doing so, and in order to meet the deadline for the evaluation report, Mr. Doe decides to use the date he has to write the report and prepare his final presentation for the principal and teachers.

Mr. Doe has jeopardized his credibility during this evaluation. First, failing to adequately including all stakeholders in this process was a critical mistake (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Hall & Hord, 2015; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Since the evaluation is about instruction, teachers are a critical stakeholder group whose voices should be included. In addition, Mr. Doe failed to gather more information from parents, another stakeholder group who should be included in an evaluation about their children’s education. Because more data from these groups was not collected and included in the report, the final report will likely be discounted, particularly by the teachers. Even though Mr. Doe was not able to interview the teachers in person, he should have explored other options (e.g. survey, email interview) to ensure the teachers’ voices were heard; in addition, Mr. Doe could have worked with the principal to remind parents to submit their surveys.

Failing to clearly communicate throughout the process is another factor that jeopardizes Mr. Does credibility. While he attempted to reschedule his visits to the school, he failed to actively pursue adjusting the deadline for the final report due to the evaluation being hindered by weather. Communicating often with stakeholders throughout the evaluation process is critical. Because of some of the other challenges that arose in collecting data, Mr. Doe could have also sent an initial draft of the report highlighting the evaluation findings to the principal and teachers for review prior to final preparation and presentation (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

Evaluators need to carefully follow the established guidelines for developing and performing effective evaluations (American, 2011; Laureate Education, 2012; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). While several factors must be factored into the design and administration of any evaluation, considering the context for the evaluation and stakeholder needs and involvement are key (Laureate Education, 2012; Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Although not all stakeholders may not agree with the findings of an evaluation, the final report must be believable and relevant (Laureate Education, 2012; Perrin, 2010). By clearly articulating the evaluation process and transparently communicating throughout the evaluation, explaining what data was collected and how it was analyzed, and ensuring all stakeholder voices are represented, evaluators can strengthen their credibility (American, 2011; Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Hall & Hord, 2015; Laureate Education, 2012; Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

 

References

American Evaluation Association. (2011). Public statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/aea.culutrally.competent. evaluation.statement.pdf.

Gothard, K., & Gorham, J. (2011). Evaluation 101: How one department embraced the process. Performance Improvement, 50(1), 37-43. Retrieved from the Walden Library database.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012a). Voices from the field: Evaluator credibility. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Perrin, B. (2010). Learning from evaluation misadventures: the importance of good communication. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 25(3),115-124.