From the Editor

Greetings! This issue of the American Journal of Evaluation includes what I believe are a number of noteworthy articles. In addition, the articles collectively represent what I think are some important general directions for the evaluation literature and ultimately for evaluation practice. In several of the articles, the authors take theory, concepts, and findings from other areas and consider their implications for evaluation. In the opening article, Norbert Schwarz and Daphna Oyserman describe work from psychology on the cognitive processes that a person goes through when trying to answer items on a questionnaire. This body of literature, to which Schwarz and Oyserman have been major contributors, has obvious implications for evaluation practice. Evaluators often rely on questionnaire responses (and on other forms of verbal report that are subject to many of the same problems described in this article). Although the article is long, it includes many extremely important recommendations for evaluators who use questionnaires. In the second article, Victor Friedman draws on another area, action science, to examine the cluster of theory-based evaluation approaches that includes program theory, theorydriven evaluation, and logic modeling. Drawing on action science concepts, Friedman contends that the implementation of many programs is implicitly based on what he calls “designed blindness. ” He further suggests that designed blindness can also affect evaluators who are trying to construct program theory. In essence, Friedman suggests, there are psychological and systemic forces that (1) lead different kinds of stakeholders to hold disparate theories of a program and (2) protect each group’s views from the perspectives of others. Friedman points out how program theory may suffer unless evaluators are aware of this problem and are equipped to deal with it. More generally, Friedman tries to offer linkages between action science and evaluation. The paper by Anders Hanberger also brings theory and concepts from outside of evaluation to bear on our field. As Hanberger notes, there has been a recent growth of interest in the way that evaluation can support democracy and in related ideas, such as whether certain levels of stakeholder participation and dialogue are required for high quality evaluation. Hanberger describes different models of democracy, as well as different models of the related concept of civil society. He reminds us that different models of democracy and civil society suggest different kinds of evaluative criteria for a program. Conversely, he argues, evaluators should try to identify what kind of democracy and civil society a policy or program supports. Hanberger also notes that when evaluators claim that their work contributes to democracy, they need to be clear about what kind of democracy they are talking about. The Schwarz and Oyserman, Friedman, and Hanberger articles illustrate the value of bringing in ideas from beyond evaluation. Of course, there is also value in examining evaluation practice and trying to glean lessons from practice that can be useful to others. Daniel Stufflebeam takes this tact in his article, in which he provides a comprehensive guide to metaevaluation. He defines metaevaluation, makes the case for it, describes in some detail the steps involved in conducting a metaevaluation, offers numerous examples from his own and others’ experience, and considers the implications of context for whether and how to do