Program Evaluation by Berk and Rossi

Program Evaluation by Berk and Rossi Identifying Issues and Formulating Questions for Program Evaluation Appropriate question formulation is the most important aspect in program evaluation as the question states the measures according to which the program should be assessed. Rossi et al (2004) assure that decision makers and stakeholders should take the main role in formulating questions. They are also sure that program evaluation should not depend precisely on the point of view of stakeholders due to their prejudiced opinion.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Program Evaluation by Berk and Rossi specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The format of the evaluation question should depend on the specific functions the question is aimed at performing. Therefore, the general logic of evaluation covers the following aspects, criteria of merit establishment, standards construction, performance measurement and its comparison with accepted standards. Formulating a quest ion for evaluation program, it should correspond to the following characteristic features, reasonableness, appropriateness, it should be answerable and convey the performance criteria (Rossi et al, 2004). Therefore, there are many other issues and techniques for formulating questions for evaluation programs. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) offer the problematization technique which is aimed at coming up â€Å"with novel research questions through a dialectical interrogation of one’s own familiar position, other stances, and the domain of literature targeted for assumption challenging† (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011, p. 252). Problematization technique for formulating question for evaluation program is one of the best means in a number of reasons. First of all, it corresponds to the principles discussed by Rossi et al (2004). Additionally, it identifies a domain literature, considers the assumptions within identifies domain, evaluates those assumptions, develops alternative assumptions, relates those assumptions to the audience and finally evaluates assumptions with the purpose to meet the requirements of the evaluation program (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011). Key Concepts in Evaluation Research Considering the key concepts in evaluation research, Berk and Rossi (1999) point at the following aspects, policy concerns, stakeholders, validity, effectiveness, and theories. The consideration of each of these concepts may help us understand the nature of the evaluation research better. Policy concerns are based on the information policymakers are eager to provide us with.Advertising Looking for essay on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Thus, the evaluation of the research is based on the questions which appear in the focus of policymakers (issues and policies which remain the public domain). The attention of the evaluation is usually attracted by a number of people who are interested in the evaluation research outcomes which may vary depending on the nature of the research. Another key concept for evaluation research program effectiveness which in case of vague goals of the program can measure marginal effectiveness (intervention), relative effectiveness (program/absence of program contrast) and cost effectiveness (measurement of the cost per unit). Validity concept presupposes the measurement of the evaluation research credibility. Theory may be an important issue before developing various programs, formulating evaluation design, or analyzing the data. Therefore, this concept is important for evaluation research. There are more concepts which may be included in the evaluations research. Program’s environment and program’s intended and observed outcomes should also be included in evaluation research. The environment impacts greatly all programs and processes which occur in the society. It is impossible to violate the social tendencies w hich appear in the environment. The comparison and contrast of the program’s intended and observed outcomes should be used as the main hypothesis for evaluation. This information helps predict evaluation results and compare those with the got ones for assessing the evaluation credibility (McDavid and Hawthorn, 2006). Bounded Rationality and Evaluation Validity According to Herbert Simon, bounded rationality is defined as the limitation of the human beings by means of the following factors, failure to know everything and understand the future consequences correctly, failure to assess the worth of the future decisions due to the inability to measure the effectiveness and importance of the latter, and failure to consider all the alternative variants of the decision outcome. All these failures are defined as the inability for a research to be rational, therefore, the notion of bounded rationality is present (Simon, Egidi, and Viale, 2008). It should be mentioned that evaluation v alidity depends on the commitment of the program evaluator, therefore, it means that the attitude to the evaluation is prejudiced.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Program Evaluation by Berk and Rossi specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Moreover, the research evaluation is measured by means of the actions and ideas, research questions and other specific issues chosen by the researcher. Therefore, research validity is based on the choice of the person who conducts evaluation. No matter how unprejudiced and fair a person may try to be, the bounded rationality is the concept which should not be ignored. Considering the key concepts discussed above and the issues for forming an evaluation question, a researcher plays a dominant role in the evaluation outcome. Research evaluation program cannot be rationale in its entire meaning. There are always limitations and concerns which should be taken into account. An evaluatorâ€⠄¢s approach to delivering an exhaustive evaluation with constructive recommendations is a product of personal experience and practice due to the similar to boundary rationality idea. An evaluator has a right to choose the evaluation criterion, descriptive program of the research and making judgments on the basis of the considered information (Gigerenzer and Selten, 2002, p. 117). Reference List Alvesson, Mats and Jà ¶rgen Sandberg. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy Of Management Review 36(2): 247-271. Berk, Richard A. and Peter Henry Rossi. 1999. Thinking about program evaluation. New York: SAGE. Gigerenzer, Gerd and Reinhard Selten. 2002. Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: MIT Press. McDavid, C. James and Laura R. L. Hawthorn. 2006. Program evaluation performance measurement: An introduction to practice. New York: SAGE.Advertising Looking for essay on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Rossi, Peter. H., Lipsey, Mark. W., and Howard E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Simon, Herbert Alexander, Egidi, Massimo, and Riccardo Viale. 2008. Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Comparing Japanese and European Serfdom

Comparing Japanese and European Serfdom Although Japan and Europe did not have any direct contact with one another during the medieval and early modern periods, they independently developed very similar class systems, known as feudalism. Feudalism was more than gallant knights and heroic samurai, it was a way of life of extreme inequality, poverty, and violence. What Is Feudalism? The great French historian Marc Bloch defined feudalism as: A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary...; supremacy of a class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind man to man...; [and] fragmentation of authority- leading inevitably to disorder. In other words, peasants or serfs are tied to the land and work for the protection afforded by the landlord plus a portion of the harvest, rather than for money. Warriors dominate society and are bound by codes of obedience and ethics. There is no strong central government; instead, lords of smaller units of land control the warriors and peasants, but these lords owe obedience (at least in theory)  to a distant and relatively weak duke, king or emperor. The Feudal Eras in Japan and Europe Feudalism was well established in Europe by the 800s CE but appeared in Japan only in the 1100s as the Heian period drew to a close and the Kamakura Shogunate rose to power. European feudalism died out with the growth of stronger political states in the 16th century, but Japanese feudalism held on until the  Meiji Restoration  of 1868. Class Hierarchy Feudal Japanese and European societies were built on a system of hereditary classes. The nobles were at the top, followed by warriors, with tenant farmers or serfs below. There was very little social mobility; the children of peasants became peasants, while the children of lords became lords and ladies. (One prominent exception to this rule in Japan was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, born a farmers son, who rose to rule over the country.) In both feudal Japan and Europe, constant warfare made warriors the most important class. Called knights  in Europe and samurai  in Japan, the warriors served local lords. In both cases, the warriors were bound by a code of ethics. Knights were supposed to conform to the concept of chivalry, while samurai were bound by the precepts of bushido, the way of the warrior. Warfare  and Weaponry Both knights and samurai rode horses into battle, used swords, and wore armor. European armor was usually all-metal, made of chain mail or plate metal. Japanese armor included lacquered leather or metal plates with silk or metal bindings. European knights were almost immobilized by their armor, needing help up on to their horses, from where they would simply try to knock their opponents off their mounts. Samurai, in contrast, wore light-weight armor that allowed for quickness and maneuverability, at the cost of providing much less protection. Feudal lords in Europe built stone castles to protect themselves and their vassals in case of attack. Japanese lords, known as  daimyo, also built castles, although Japans castles were made of wood rather than stone. Moral and Legal Frameworks Japanese feudalism was based on the ideas of the Chinese philosopher Kong Qiu or Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confucius stressed morality and filial piety, or respect for elders and other superiors. In Japan, it was the moral duty of the daimyo and samurai to protect the peasants and villagers in their region. In return, the peasants and villagers were duty-bound to honor the warriors and pay taxes to them. European feudalism was based instead on Roman imperial laws and customs, supplemented by Germanic traditions and supported by the authority of the Catholic Church. The relationship between a lord and his vassals was seen as contractual; lords offered payment and protection, in return for which vassals offered complete loyalty. Land Ownership and Economics A key distinguishing factor between the two systems was land ownership. European knights gained land from their lords as payment for their military service; they had direct control of the serfs who worked that land. In contrast, Japanese samurai did not own any land. Instead, the daimyo used a portion of their income from taxing the peasants to provide the samurai a salary, usually paid in rice. Role of Gender   Samurai and knights differed in several other ways, including their gender interactions. Samurai women, for example, were expected to be strong like the men  and to face death without flinching. European women were considered fragile flowers who had to be protected by chivalrous knights. In addition, samurai were supposed to be cultured and artistic, able to compose poetry or write in beautiful calligraphy. Knights were usually illiterate, and would likely have scorned such past-times in favor of hunting or jousting. Philosophy of Death Knights and samurai had very different approaches to death. Knights were bound by Catholic Christian law against suicide  and strove to avoid death. Samurai, on the other hand, had no religious reason to avoid death and would commit suicide in the face of defeat in order to maintain their honor. This ritual suicide is known as seppuku (or harakiri). Conclusion Although feudalism in Japan and Europe has vanished, a few traces remain. Monarchies remain in both Japan and some European nations, though in constitutional or ceremonial forms. Knights and samurai have been relegated to social roles or honorific titles. And socio-economic class divisions remain, though nowhere nearly as extreme.