AEA, Bold or Timid?

LEONARD BICKMAN

ABSTRACT

Credentialing and certification are processes that can help the field ofevaluation establish a clearer identity as a profession. They will helpAEA further establish its presence as the premier organization inevaluation. Altschuld (this issue) proposes a sensible approach, focus-ing first on credentialing. I argue that we should proceed now.

INTRODUCTION

I approach the question of certification as one of boldness or timidity, because I believe thatthe objections to moving forward on certification are based on that dimension and ourassociated view of our profession and association. Do we see the American EvaluationAssociation (AEA) as staking a claim for the existence of a profession of evaluation, or dowe value the status quo in which others will define who we are as evaluators? The critics ofthe certification of evaluation are correct in their lists of challenges and problems that mustbe met in creating and maintaining a certification or credentialing system. However, I do notagree with their conclusion that such a system is not worth pursuing. Let me tell you how Icame to this conclusion.

In my presidential address dealing with this issue, I tried to make it clear that my supportfor certification was not based primarily on making the world safe from poor evaluators(Bickman, 1997). I do not think that our profession or most others can show that certificationaccomplishes that function (Bickman, 1999). It may make good public relations to talk aboutprotecting the public, but that will be very difficult to demonstrate. My support is basedinstead on a much more utilitarian or instrumental function of certification. Will certificationhelp evaluation as a profession and AEA as an organization? It is my belief that the work thatis necessary to establish a clear identity of evaluation will help us as both a profession andas the premier organization of evaluators.

Leonard Bickman ● Center for Mental Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, 1207 18th Avenue South, Nashville, TN37212; Tel: (615) 322-8694; Fax: (615) 322-7049; E-mail: Bickman@ibm.net.

Leonard Bickman

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1999, pp. 519–520. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.ISSN: 1098-2140 Copyright © 1999 by American Evaluation Association.

519

Will there be complete agreement among evaluators about what skills and experiencesare important to credential? I doubt it. But we would not accept program personnel sayingthat their program could not be evaluated because there was not complete consensus on theprogram’s goals and objectives. It is hypocritical to believe that we can evaluate everyoneelse but not ourselves. Are we willing to say that evaluation cannot be evaluated?

Altschuld (this issue) describes a very reasonable plan for an incremental approach tocredentialing. Will this be a difficult path to follow? Yes, but I believe it is necessary. It isnecessary to define who we are. It is necessary to describe the unique knowledge andcompetencies that evaluators have if we are to exist as a profession. Certification, creden-tialing and other methods of self-definition have been achieved by most professions. Whatmakes us think that evaluation is such an impossible case? We are certainly not pathfindersor leaders here, so not too much boldness is needed. There are successful models that we canfollow. Altschuld describes a prudent approach to credentialing in an accompanying article.I commend this plan to the membership.

REFERENCES

Altschuld, J. W. (1999). The case for a voluntary system for credentialing evaluators.American Journalof Evaluation, 20,507–517.

Bickman, L. (1997). Evaluating evaluation: Where do we go from here? Evaluation Practice, 18,1–16.Bickman, L. (1999). Clinical practice makes perfect and other myths about mental health services.

American Psychologist, 54, 958–973.

520 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EVALUATION, 20(3), 1999