Critical Social Theory and Evaluation Practice: New Directions for Evaluation, Number 127 - Softcover

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0470909447 ISBN 13: 9780470909447

Publisher: Jossey-Bass, 2010

Synopsis

As a practice meant to improve society, evaluation is implicated in discussions about which societal and cultural values and principles of justice will prevail and which ones will get subverted or ignored altogether. For the most part, as currently configured, the relationship of evaluators to policy makers has jeopardized evaluation's ability to provide the critical lens needed for feedback on the effects of a society's practices, policies, and structures. Many theorists believe that it is only by examining and critically assessing how knowledge is produced and reproduced in society that we can better reflect on and imagine new, more socially just, social configurations and relations. One such approach, critical theory, is a pedagogical practice that employs a systemic and historical critique of social and cultural formations and practices in a way that fosters citizens' abilities to evaluate and alter them. The intent of this issue of New Directions for Evaluation is to show the relevance of critical social theory for evaluation practice. Each of the authors in this volume addresses in a different way and from a variety of disciplinary fields what a critical theory lens might offer evaluation practice.

This is the 127th volume of the Jossey-Bass quarterly report series New Directions for Evaluation, an official publication of the American Evaluation Association.

About this title

About the Author

Melissa Freeman is associate professor of qualitative research methodologies in the College of Education at the University of Georgia; her research focuses on critical, hermeneutic, and relational approaches to educational research and evaluation.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Critical Social Theory and Evaluation Practice

New Directions for EvaluationBy Melissa Freeman

John Wiley & Sons

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-470-90944-7

Chapter One

Critical Social Theory: Core Tenets, Inherent Issues

Melissa Freeman, Erika França S. Vasconcelos

Abstract

This chapter outlines the core tenets of critical social theory and describes inherent issues facing evaluators conducting critical theory evaluation. Using critical pedagogy as an example, the authors describe the issues facing evaluators by developing four of the subtheories that comprise a critical social theory: (a) a theory of false consciousness, (b) a theory of crisis, (c) a theory of education, and (d) a theory of transformative action. They conclude by advocating for more, not less, attention being paid to a critical theory approach in evaluation. Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

Critical social theorists are critical of what they see as pervasive inequalities and injustices in everyday social relationships and arrangements. They view society as a human construction in need of reconstruction. A "critical social theory" is both the process and the outcome of a transformational agenda and brings together multiple beliefs about human understanding and misunderstanding, the nature of change, and the role of critique and education in society. It is an evaluative as well as a political activity that involves assessing how things are in order to transform them into what they ought to be. Because critical social theory advocates for change, it has often been portrayed as a deterministic approach seeking a desired emancipatory outcome (Lather, 1986). Our primary objective in this chapter is to supplant that perception with another: A desired outcome can only be established in the context of a specific social group seeking to resolve a specific issue.

We conceive of critical theory as a participatory approach that engages constituents or stakeholders in a reflective and critical reassessment of the relationship between overarching social, economic, or political systems, such as capitalism or accountabilism, and everyday practices. Central to a critical theory argument is that systems like capitalism produce knowledge in such a way as to obscure their oppressive consequences. Unjust practices and arrangements, therefore, do not manifest themselves in straightforward ways but become distorted and hidden over time within contextually and culturally embedded practices (Dant, 2003). Critical social theory offers a historical framework that both challenges the theoretical or ideological underpinnings of everyday practice and uses stakeholder perspectives of and experiences with those practices to develop new ways of conceiving of their meaning and purpose in society (Lather, 1986).

In other words, critical theory is the label for a group of participatory, pedagogical, and action-oriented theories that advocate for a certain kind of evaluation or inquiry approach. Participatory because critical theorists cannot know beforehand how a social system has become enmeshed in a particular context and practice, nor can they know what forms of oppression or injustices are present without engaging the stakeholders themselves in identifying and naming those injustices. Pedagogical because critical theorists believe that the process of assessing practices from a critical perspective involves learning new ways of perceiving people's roles and locations in the perpetuation and resistance of oppressive structures. Action oriented because critical social theorists stress that the development of new understanding is contingent on changes in practice and material conditions, and cannot rely on rhetoric alone. Furthermore, critical theorists maintain that critical theory is an integral part of building and sustaining a more just society, one in which all members of that society feel empowered to carry out their practices in ways that foster democratic and empowering processes and outcomes, while continuously monitoring those processes and outcomes for evidence of social injustices.

Although involving analyses of local and historical particularities, critical social theories share several assumptions and approaches. We provide an overview of critical social theory's core principles and concerns, describe how we think it can benefit evaluation practice and society, and conclude by delineating some key issues facing critical social theory evaluators.

Critical Social Theory

Critical social theory has a complex and multifaceted history that is usually traced back to the 1920s and 1930s in the work of theorists associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. Commonly known as the Frankfurt School, the institute was originally established and funded by Felix Weil, an Argentinean political scientist interested in the study of socialism and Marxism. Before long, however, social, economic, and political conditions, especially in relation to the rise of fascism in various parts of the world, altered the focus of Frankfurt School theorists away from orthodox Marxism to a more varied perspective on theory and culture (Dant, 2003; Rasmussen, 1996). Although varied in terms of specific concerns, theoretical constructs, and disciplinary applications, critical social theories share several core principles. Historically, the primary function of critical theory is the establishment of a sustained critique of all social formations, whether cultural, economic, or political, with an eye to preventing any one form from taking control of the world in a way that is antidemocratic, unjust, exploitative, or oppressive (Dant, 2003; Sherman, 2003).

In general, critical social theorists posit a constitutional relationship between the structures of a society and its members, where everyone is affected, albeit in different ways and to different degrees (Dant, 2003). Connected to this is a belief that the knowledge generated by oppressive systems has become so embedded in everyday practices that it is a distortion and misrepresentation of human experiences and desires. For example, critical theorists believe that modern societies perpetuate oppressive structures by promoting one dominant way of thinking in the form of "instrumental reason" (Dant, 2003, p. 160), which obscures and excludes the values, desires, and experiences of social members. The solution, according to critical social theorists, is to engage in some form of ideology critique that is both critically reflective of people's roles and experiences in everyday practice and historically grounded in an analysis of how those practices have been developed and supported within modern systems (Calhoun & Karaganis, 2001). This approach is considered necessary because one of the effects obscuring the relationship humans have with dominant structures is that inequalities are taken to be natural occurrences, and so, embedded in the notion of critique is an antioppressive pedagogy oriented to social change. Therefore, critique is emancipatory in that it entails the capability to explore, without constraints, alternative meanings and realities (Dant, 2003).

Furthermore, critical social theorists reject the belief that theory and practice are separate forms of human activity, and view both as intrinsically embodied in praxis, in the way humans act out their theoretical versions of the world. In other words, conversations that tie theory and practice together go beyond the immediate concerns individuals may have to involve a critical appraisal of the values, commitments, visions, and principles they have about their practices, their roles in society, and so on, as well as to a consideration of how their practices enable or hamper reaching those objectives (Schwandt, 2005). A common criticism of critical theory is that it pushes toward a predetermined outcome for these conversations; however, critical theory is primarily a theory of practice that is shaped through its interaction with others regarding that practice.

Modernist and Postmodernist Variations

Although change-oriented and antioppressive in vision, critical social theories differ. One point of contrast occurs between a modernist perspective associated with the Frankfurt School, which relies on the recovery of a critical form of reason as the solution to human emancipation from domination, and a postmodernist perspective exemplified in the work of Michel Foucault, which challenges the effectiveness of such a recovery (Leonard, 1990). Both views stress that even though historically affected, oppressive and emancipatory knowledges must be understood within local and contextually specific practices (Leonard, 1990). Both also assert that language itself carries forth its own history of meaning; thus any account, local or otherwise, needs to be scrutinized for its multiple meanings.

Where they differ, however, is in their overall view of society and the role they bestow to theory in the service of emancipation. For example, even while believing that the intersection of theory and practice occurs in local contexts, Frankfurt School theorists rely on a grand theory of how society changes (in an evolutionary progression) and the necessary means for its evolution toward democracy (through critical rational means) (Leonard, 1990). In their view, enlightenment is achieved through self-knowledge and the ability of oppressed people to recover a genuine narrative of their history (Fay, 1987). Foucaultian theorists, on the other hand, reject evolutionary progressive visions of society as well as the belief that reason is ultimately just (Leonard, 1990). Casting aside a focus on structures of knowledge, they advocate for a genealogical approach that traces the way knowledge and power are produced in discursive formations (Leonard, 1990).

At its extremes, the first view asserts that there is no possibility of emancipation for individuals without structural reorganization, whereas the second wishes to free the individual from the constraints of all structures, discursive or physical. In practice, critical social theorists tend to lean more toward one or the other, but often draw on components of each perspective. For example, multiple modernist perspectives, while still supporting enlightenment ideals of social progress, draw on art, performance, or narrative as an alternative to rational thinking (Conquergood, 2006; Foley, 2002; Foley & Valenzuela, 2005).

Critical Social Theory Evaluation

Conducting critical theory evaluation means taking both a value-committed and value-critical stance (Schwandt, 1997) and advocating for "political democratic ideals" (Greene, 2006, p. 118) while engaging critically with stakeholders about the social values embedded in the practice or issue under scrutiny. Our view is that values are an integral part of what evaluators must deal with, what they bring with them, and what they strive to articulate in their work (Becker, 1967). However, here we are not arguing for taking the side of the rich or the poor, the powerful or the powerless. Instead we are arguing for taking the side of social justice, and what that means and involves is part of what the inquiry process must both determine and then use as the basis for action. Advocating for democratic ideals does not mean that the evaluator has a predetermined solution for the problems or oppressions articulated by the stakeholders. What it does mean, however, is that critical theory evaluation offers a variety of pedagogical processes that seek to foster the development of a more socially just society, whether by strengthening social capital through citizen deliberation (MacNeil, 2002) or dialoguing about the moral import of a practice (Schwandt, 1989).

Critical theorists seek to engage stakeholders who may not hold similar values or social positions within a program, practice, or community in ways that foster the transformation of individual understandings and adherences to taken-for-granted beliefs about self and others, while developing a commitment to collective action based on the transformative knowledge generated by the group's interactions (Lather, 1986; Leonardo, 2004). Depending on the context and expressed needs, this engagement can take on multiple forms. The evaluator becomes researcher, facilitator, negotiator, educator, learner, change agent, and critic (Everitt, 1996; MacNeil, 2005).

In other words, critical social theory and critical evaluation share certain assumptions about the promise and role of social inquiry in society. Advocates of both:

? believe that society can be improved, or altered, through education and intervention and that all social practices are interventions, whether they claim neutrality or advocate from a particular stance

? are constrained as well as supported by local contexts, knowledge, interests, and needs

? stress the inclusion of diverse perspectives and interests

? emphasize that the process of the inquiry is just as important as the result, and that it should sustain and develop democratic values and decisionmaking processes whenever possible

? are self-critical and self-reflective about how their practices are implicated in maintaining or creating oppressive structures and relationships

? assert that local values determining merit and worth need to be accounted for but that their revision or transformation is likely to be one effect or one intended objective of the inquiry

? locate the validity of the inquiry in its capacity to effect change, thus seeking catalytic validity (Lather, 1986) as a central determination of the success or quality of the inquiry

Inherent Issues for Critical Theory Evaluators

Embedded in all critical social theories are four interrelated theories (Fay, 1987, pp. 31–32), which we paraphrase in our own words: (a) a theory of false consciousness, which explains the nature and process through which social members' values and beliefs become obscured and distorted by dominant ideologies, (b) a theory of crisis, which locates and describes the source and nature of the oppression in question, (c) a theory of education, which accounts for the conditions and processes necessary for the enlightenment or alternative visions to surface, and (d) a theory of transformative action, which details the kinds of actions and alterations needed to resolve the identified crisis. Enlightenment and emancipatory action are developed by people within a particular sociohistoric context for a specific purpose, and so the value and success of the purpose, process, and structure of a critical theory relies on its catalytic validity, its ability to empower stakeholders to alter their oppressed situation (Lather, 1986; Leonard, 1990).

What does it mean to change our understanding of how society works and how does this presumably new understanding contribute to changing society? If anything has clearly emerged from critical social theory's history, it is that a transformational agenda takes multiple shapes and targets different needs and interests, and, as such, its variability of means and ends is an issue that every critical theorist inherits and must account for. Drawing on Fay's (1987) four subtheories and Freire's (1970/1993) critical pedagogy as examples of a pedagogical and participatory critical approach, we outline the inherent issues (Smith, 2008) facing critical social theorist evaluators. Subsequent chapters provide examples of how some of these issues might play out in practice. The broad question here is: What fundamental issues are involved in a critical approach?

A theory of false consciousness. Critical pedagogy originated with the publication of Freire's (1970/1993) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, arguably the most important educator in the last half of the 20th century (Kohl, 1997). In the past four decades, the field has undergone many transformations as critical pedagogues have deployed new strategies to confront changing social and historical contexts and to account for the perspectives and considerations of the participants in those contexts. It is thus unsurprising that critical pedagogy is not a unitary set of texts, beliefs, convictions, or assumptions, and some scholars may prefer the plural, critical pedagogies (Norton & Toohey, 2004, p. 2). Nevertheless, these theories share a desire to offer people tools for the critical and creative analysis of their own circumstances (Wallace, 2003). People in different educational and community contexts are encouraged to examine the sociopolitical, economic, and historical realities that shape their lives, in order to make new meanings and develop cultural practices that are critical, transformative, and liberatory.

One of the central beliefs driving critical theory and critical pedagogy is that reeducation is required because the oppressed "have internalized the values, beliefs, and even world view of their oppressors ... [and] willingly cooperate with those who oppress them in maintaining those social practices that result in their oppression" (Fay, 1987, p. 107). This internalized process, commonly known as false consciousness, raises several issues for the critical evaluator, the first being how to define false consciousness in order to address it.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Critical Social Theory and Evaluation Practiceby Melissa Freeman Copyright © 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Excerpted by permission of John Wiley & Sons. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Publication date: 2010
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0470909447
• ISBN 13: 9780470909447
• Binding: Paperback
• Edition number: 1
• Number of pages: 112
• Editor: Freeman Melissa