THE EVOLVING SYNTHESES OF PROGRAM VALUE

In this paper, we object to Michael Scriven's claim that the basic log ic of evaluation is criterial and standards-based. We note that valuin g is an integral part of perception and that valuing within perception , repeatedly refined, is an even more basic logic of evaluation. We fm d unpersuasive his claim that making the final synthesis ''governed'' will diminish bias, noting that bias will find its way into the requir ed statements of need, function, standards and weighting. We offer our alternative for disciplining the synthesis process, by urging more sy stematic and demanding critiques of emerging interpretations and value s, and by more deliberately using competing conceptual organizers (e.g ., goals, issues, decisions and elements of the rules Scriven advocate s) as temporary and dialectical grounds for reconsidering the evolving meanings of the program, including its merit and shortcoming.