THE PUSH FOR TRUTH IN SENTENCING - EVALUATING COMPETING STAKEHOLDER CONSTRUCTIONS - THE CASE FOR CONTEXTUAL CONSTRUCTIONISM IN EVALUATION RESEARCH

This article promotes the use of contextual constructionism in evaluat ion research. The article extends Palumbo and Hallett's 1992 argument rejecting traditional models of evaluation which assume that ''consens us'' is reached among ''key policymakers, managers and staff'' regardi ng program goals. Palumbo and Hallett argue that ''conflict '' more ac curately characterizes program evaluation, due to the existence of ''m ultiple realities '' among stakeholders. They advocate a constructioni st grounding for evaluation research. In the present article, the call for ''truth in sentencing '' in Tennessee (and to a lesser extent, ac ross the country) is used to further illustrate conflict and to promot e the use of a ''contextual constructionist '' approach to evaluation research.