Article Review

Article Review

Your Name

Class Name

University Name

Instructor Name

Article Review

Initial Identification

Blain R. Worthen writes the article titled “Critical Challenges Confronting Certification of Evaluators” to understand whether evaluators should undergo a certification process. The article was published in the American Journal for Evaluation in 1999. The focus of the article is to understand whether the certification of evaluators can improve the ability of evaluators to deliver quality work to clients. Certification can also help to grow the field into maturity, thereby becoming a recognized field in its own right. The author cites some objections to the institution of a certification system in the field. He discusses the various supporting and opposing arguments to the institution of a certification system, including the changes in the context within which the evaluator profession operates. These changes in context have created changes in perception for the author and he includes these changes in perception within his arguments for the institution of a certification system for the evaluator profession. Based on the contextual changes, he suggests that while a certification system would help advance the field of evaluation, this process of certification should exercise caution and pace itself in order to accommodate any future changes and developments within the field and the context within which the field carries out its functions (Worthen, 1999).

Brief Summary

The author starts with an introduction, which points out incompetence and lack of sufficient expertise within the evaluation profession. These factors create necessity for certification to provide credulity and professionalism for the profession, according to the author. He continues to highlight why certification is important for any profession that aims to improve its expertise. To support his claim that certification is necessary, the author provides various advantages to certification, which include improvement of training, increase in evaluator competence and provide clients with a means for choosing the most competent evaluator for their needs (Worthen, 1999). Worthen (1999) notes while there are some evaluators who recognize the necessity for certification, many others are opposed to such measures because of the failure of some certification systems, one being the American Educational Research Association (AERA) (Worthen, 1999). From the various deliberations he makes on certification, he concludes that while certification is essential in the process of improving the evaluator profession, the process should consider various impediments such as litigation, feasibility and resistance from already practicing evaluators.

Critical Discussion

Worthen (1999) highlights important issues that are worth considering. He looks at both sides of the arguments on certification in order to provide a clear picture on whether certification is necessary for the evaluator profession. One of the issues he investigates that has importance is the issue of the link between certification and litigation. Litigation can create problems for any profession since it makes practicing difficult (Worthen, 1999). It is important that Worthen consider this issue since it is one that might cause professionals in the field to reject the notion of certification. Despite the legitimacy of concerns about litigation, the concerns is inflated in the article rather unnecessarily. He does not consider that litigation is an essential aspect of any profession that ensures credibility. The threat of litigation is a moderating influence to ensure that clients get adequate service from the professionals. In addition, in the field of evaluation there is little potential for serious litigation that would adversely affect the practitioners. For this reason, I disagree with Worthen (1999) and take the stance of the opponents, who propose that certification will occur “in one great bound” (Worthen, 1999). Worthen’s (1999) insistence on caution is well founded but is melodramatic. I believe that once the necessity arises to certify practicing evaluators, the certification process will occur automatically and with less distress than previous calculated attempts to introduce certification within the profession. Considering certification processes in other fields can show the melodramatic nature of Worthen’s (1999) cautionary approach to certification in the evaluation profession.

In software certification processes, the process is driven by demands by the operating environment. Voas (2000) pointed out that in usage-based software certification process, the popular approaches dictated the development processes and standards adopted by software publishers. This shows that if the external environment demands certification within the evaluator profession, then the certification process will unfold with less inefficiency. It will be driven by the need to meet market demands. The lack of such demands from the external environment in the article show that such an opportune moment has not arrived for the evaluator profession. Another issue worth considering in the article is the resistance to certification within the profession, which suggests that the evaluator profession might not be ready for certification just yet.

The failure of AERA is an example of lack of unity within the profession on how the certification process should be carried out. I think the resistance to change highlighted in the article might be caused by a lack of a unified framework upon which the profession could base its certification processes. Worthen notes the lack of an agreed upon paradigm to guide the certification process. A study by King and Ranft (2001) on improvisation in the certification process within the thoracic surgery board shows that group involvement in the certification process is essential in instituting certification. The board used group and individual expertise to improve on how to meet the demands of a dynamic and unpredictable external environment. Therefore, a paradigm is indeed necessary for most professions to change to certification measures. Finally, I agree that the field needs to move with caution during the change process leading to certification, from the arguments made in the article; I think future certification is unavoidable.

Final Evaluation

The article is well presented. (Passive Voice used) Worthen presents both sides of the certification argument in a balanced and objective manner without showing overt support for either side without justification. Although he is clearly in favor of certification, he does make concessions on how it should take place to ensure optimum results. He urges caution, which I agree is a prudent measure considering the litigation and other impediments to the success of certification implementation in the profession. I agree that certification would provide validity and professionalism to the profession if there were a unified framework upon which all parties in the profession can agree. This is essential and of paramount importance if the certification process will benefit the profession in the future. His overemphasis on factors such as litigation does not consider that for certification to occur, there needs pressure from the external environment where the evaluators operate. Without such pressures to create necessity for certification, most of the calculated attempt to institute certification within the evaluator profession might remain unfruitful.

References

King, A. W., & Ranft, A. L. (2001). Capturing knowledge and knowing through improvisation:

What managers can learn from the thoracic surgery board certification process? Journal

of management, 27(3), 255-277.

Voas, J. (2000). Developing a usage-based software certification process. Computer, (8), 32-37.

Worthen, B. R. (1999). Critical challenges confronting certification of evaluators. American

Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 533-555.