- Email: [email protected]
Evaluators, libs, and neocons
In..House Reflections
Evaluators, Libs, and N eo cons Ernest R. House
University of Colorado
Every day at noon when I walk back from the rec center after my swim, I see a group of young men dressed in gowns, some passing out literature, some sitting on the ground, in nice weather, in the middle of the quad, playing musical instruments, chanting. Every day I refuse the literature they offer me and wonder what impels these farmboys from Iowa to dress up in white gowns, often with wing-tip street shoes beneath and shaved heads above. Tomorrow they will offer me the literature again and I will refuse. I marvel at the strength of their beliefs. They must have such a strong sense of their place in the world, of their need to change the world , that my refusal day by day is as ephemeral as the clouds that blot the Colorado sun. Our role in social change is not so clear. Not nearly as certain as theirs, even within our own collective mind. In his latest collection of observations and reminiscences, Family and Nation, Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells of the coming of evaluation: And, then, most importantly, there was a tremendous surge of what came to be known as evaluation research. Some of this also partook of advocacy. The early studies of Head Start-not all, but most-were undertaken not only to learn how the program worked but to demonstrate that it did. Show and tell. But it is also the case that the move toward evaluation research reflected a
65
genuine desire to introduce a measure of conceptual discipline into the formulation of social policy. (p. 73)
Moynihan quotes Rossi and Wright (1984): In retrospect, a reasonable summary of findings is that the expected value for the effect of any program hovers around zero. This finding was devastating to the social reformers who had hoped that the Great Society programs would make appreciable (or at least detectable) gains in bettering the lot of the poor and redressing the ills of society.
This is not quite how I assess it-nor Moynihan either, who goes on to say that the Great Society programs were not nearly as extensive as now believed nor were the claims for them nearly so great as remembered. My own judgment is that many of these programs worked tolerably well, and that in a field like education, the gains for the poor and the blacks were not discernible but impressive. In fact, I believe some positive findings are introvertible. (See, for example, Burton & Jones, 1982; Jones, 1984.) Now we have this curious disagreement among the people who conducted the evaluations as to the overall results; for Rossi and Wright are hardly alone in their summative judgment, and Burton, Jones, and I are hardly alone in ours. I Perhaps this disagreement is due to differences in the particular program areas that we evaluate, or perhaps to differences in methodologies, for we have been unable to disentangle the special methodologies we employ from the results we obtain. Different methods sometimes give different results, even to the extent that Henry Aaron can say, "Social experiments ... have been a force for slowing the adoption of new social policies." There is another possibility, too, that our evaluations have not been decisive enough or unequivocal enough or unambivalent enough to choose between competing world views. The two prevailing views on these matters among social scientists currently, I believe, are the liberal and the neoconservative. The liberal position is represented by the Great Society programs themselves. Social problems can be solved like industrial problems: Identify the problem first; design a government program to solve it; apply social science expertise, resources, and money; and the problem will be solved. Even though many still believe it, this view doesn't seem quite right any more, and it is slipping in popularity.
66
The view in ascendance at the moment is that ofthe neoconservatives, who believe that government simply cannot solve the major social problems, such as poverty and inequality, and, in trying to do so, government assigns itself an impossible task, overloads itself, thereby destroying its own credibility, and often doing harm to the people it is trying to help. Government should stay out of the social reform business, they believe. The apotheosis of this point of view, perhaps, is represented by Charles Murray's attack on the Great Society programs, which he claims actually worsened the plight of the poor blacks they were supposed to help. This view does not seem very satisfactory either. These two streams of thought are the latest manifestation of two long-standing and opposed traditions about the role of the intellectuals in social change. The intellectuals ofthe Enlightenment were blamed for both the design and excesses of the French Revolution and became the prototype for the adversary intellectuals who advocate social change. A group of counterintellectuals emerged, who argued against reforms and the reform intellectuals. Perhaps de Tocqueville most brilliantly presents their case: Our revolutionaries had the same fondness for broad generalizations, cutand-dried legislative systems, and a pedantic symmetry; the same contempt for hard facts; and the same taste for reshaping institutions on novel, ingenious, original lines....The result was nothing short of disastrous.
So we, the evaluators and policy intellectuals, act out this debate about our own role in social change with new facts and techniques but many of the arguments and questions look much the same. What is our role in society? To initiate, support, and legitimize social change? Or to conserve, protect, and legitimate the best in our social structure? Both? Neither? The farm boys from Iowa are clear about their role; we struggle with ours. Perhaps what we can agree upon is what Moynihan credits us with trying to do at our best-introduce an element of conceptual discipline into the formulation of social policy. At least it seems to me we should strive for that.
NOTE 1. This contrast is not meant to place either set of researchers into a liberal or conservative position. Research is always used by others to support their views or refute their opponents.
67
REFERENCES Burton, N., & Jones, L. V. (1982). Recent trends in achievement levels of black and white youth. Educational Researcher, 11(4), 10-14. Jones, L. V. (1984). White-black achievement differences. American Psychologist, 39( II), 1207-1213. Moynihan, D. P. (1986). Family and nation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Rossi, P., & Wright, S. (1984). Cited in D. P. Moynihan Family and Nation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Evaluators, Libs, and N eo cons Ernest R. House
University of Colorado
Every day at noon when I walk back from the rec center after my swim, I see a group of young men dressed in gowns, some passing out literature, some sitting on the ground, in nice weather, in the middle of the quad, playing musical instruments, chanting. Every day I refuse the literature they offer me and wonder what impels these farmboys from Iowa to dress up in white gowns, often with wing-tip street shoes beneath and shaved heads above. Tomorrow they will offer me the literature again and I will refuse. I marvel at the strength of their beliefs. They must have such a strong sense of their place in the world, of their need to change the world , that my refusal day by day is as ephemeral as the clouds that blot the Colorado sun. Our role in social change is not so clear. Not nearly as certain as theirs, even within our own collective mind. In his latest collection of observations and reminiscences, Family and Nation, Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells of the coming of evaluation: And, then, most importantly, there was a tremendous surge of what came to be known as evaluation research. Some of this also partook of advocacy. The early studies of Head Start-not all, but most-were undertaken not only to learn how the program worked but to demonstrate that it did. Show and tell. But it is also the case that the move toward evaluation research reflected a
65
genuine desire to introduce a measure of conceptual discipline into the formulation of social policy. (p. 73)
Moynihan quotes Rossi and Wright (1984): In retrospect, a reasonable summary of findings is that the expected value for the effect of any program hovers around zero. This finding was devastating to the social reformers who had hoped that the Great Society programs would make appreciable (or at least detectable) gains in bettering the lot of the poor and redressing the ills of society.
This is not quite how I assess it-nor Moynihan either, who goes on to say that the Great Society programs were not nearly as extensive as now believed nor were the claims for them nearly so great as remembered. My own judgment is that many of these programs worked tolerably well, and that in a field like education, the gains for the poor and the blacks were not discernible but impressive. In fact, I believe some positive findings are introvertible. (See, for example, Burton & Jones, 1982; Jones, 1984.) Now we have this curious disagreement among the people who conducted the evaluations as to the overall results; for Rossi and Wright are hardly alone in their summative judgment, and Burton, Jones, and I are hardly alone in ours. I Perhaps this disagreement is due to differences in the particular program areas that we evaluate, or perhaps to differences in methodologies, for we have been unable to disentangle the special methodologies we employ from the results we obtain. Different methods sometimes give different results, even to the extent that Henry Aaron can say, "Social experiments ... have been a force for slowing the adoption of new social policies." There is another possibility, too, that our evaluations have not been decisive enough or unequivocal enough or unambivalent enough to choose between competing world views. The two prevailing views on these matters among social scientists currently, I believe, are the liberal and the neoconservative. The liberal position is represented by the Great Society programs themselves. Social problems can be solved like industrial problems: Identify the problem first; design a government program to solve it; apply social science expertise, resources, and money; and the problem will be solved. Even though many still believe it, this view doesn't seem quite right any more, and it is slipping in popularity.
66
The view in ascendance at the moment is that ofthe neoconservatives, who believe that government simply cannot solve the major social problems, such as poverty and inequality, and, in trying to do so, government assigns itself an impossible task, overloads itself, thereby destroying its own credibility, and often doing harm to the people it is trying to help. Government should stay out of the social reform business, they believe. The apotheosis of this point of view, perhaps, is represented by Charles Murray's attack on the Great Society programs, which he claims actually worsened the plight of the poor blacks they were supposed to help. This view does not seem very satisfactory either. These two streams of thought are the latest manifestation of two long-standing and opposed traditions about the role of the intellectuals in social change. The intellectuals ofthe Enlightenment were blamed for both the design and excesses of the French Revolution and became the prototype for the adversary intellectuals who advocate social change. A group of counterintellectuals emerged, who argued against reforms and the reform intellectuals. Perhaps de Tocqueville most brilliantly presents their case: Our revolutionaries had the same fondness for broad generalizations, cutand-dried legislative systems, and a pedantic symmetry; the same contempt for hard facts; and the same taste for reshaping institutions on novel, ingenious, original lines....The result was nothing short of disastrous.
So we, the evaluators and policy intellectuals, act out this debate about our own role in social change with new facts and techniques but many of the arguments and questions look much the same. What is our role in society? To initiate, support, and legitimize social change? Or to conserve, protect, and legitimate the best in our social structure? Both? Neither? The farm boys from Iowa are clear about their role; we struggle with ours. Perhaps what we can agree upon is what Moynihan credits us with trying to do at our best-introduce an element of conceptual discipline into the formulation of social policy. At least it seems to me we should strive for that.
NOTE 1. This contrast is not meant to place either set of researchers into a liberal or conservative position. Research is always used by others to support their views or refute their opponents.
67
REFERENCES Burton, N., & Jones, L. V. (1982). Recent trends in achievement levels of black and white youth. Educational Researcher, 11(4), 10-14. Jones, L. V. (1984). White-black achievement differences. American Psychologist, 39( II), 1207-1213. Moynihan, D. P. (1986). Family and nation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Rossi, P., & Wright, S. (1984). Cited in D. P. Moynihan Family and Nation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.