Desivilya Syna, H., Rottman, A., & Raz, M. (2015). Social justice in action: The contribution
of evaluation to employment integration of a vulnerable population—The case of college
graduates with learning disabilities. In B. Rosenstein & H. Desivilya Syna (Eds.), Evaluation and social justice in complex sociopolitical contexts. New Directions for Evaluation, 146,
45–55.

4
Social Justice in Action: The Contribution
of Evaluation to Employment Integration
of a Vulnerable Population—The Case of
College Graduates With Learning
Disabilities
Helena Desivilya Syna, Amit Rottman, Michal Raz
Abstract
This article presents and discusses an evaluation model that can contribute to
social justice and that increases equal opportunities of employment for a vulnerable population—college graduates with learning disabilities. The framework responds to increasingly competitive job markets’ potential exclusion of
vulnerable social groups from meaningful participation in this domain, consequently impeding social justice. Counteracting socioeconomic gaps in societies
requires active involvement of community members, social institutions, and government. According to the proposed model, the evaluator assumes such an active
stance by building genuine partnership with evaluees. We present the sociopolitical and socioeconomic context—the “brave” new job market foreshadowing the
evaluation and social justice interface. The model is illustrated through a case
study—evaluation of an innovative program supporting the transition of learning disabled college graduates to the job market. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 146, Summer 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation
Association. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ev.20119

45

46

EVALUATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN COMPLEX SOCIOPOLITCAL CONTEXTS

T

his article presents an evaluation model that can contribute to
fostering social just; ice by promoting equal opportunities in employment integration of a vulnerable population—college graduates
with learning disabilities. We open with portraying the sociopolitical realities of the current job market, which foreshadows the evaluation–social
justice interface. Subsequently, the evaluation model is presented, followed
by a description of the evaluated project, highlighting the implementation
modes of the model. Finally, we reflect upon the insights regarding the role
of the proposed evaluation model in fostering social justice.

The Characteristics of the “Brave” New Job Market
Economic and political transformations have markedly affected job markets
in the developed world. These changes are visibly manifested in the odds
and nature of employment; namely, participation in the job market at any
given time (Stuart, Grugulis, Tomlinson, Forde, & MacKenzie, 2013).
Most of the developed countries have been facing economic recession,
including employment crises. In response to these economic predicaments,
governments have applied austerity measures inspired by neoliberal ideology. Consequently, labor markets have become increasingly competitive,
leading to mounting inequalities among various social strata. The political
networks and lobbies have promoted opportunities for the dominant groups
while leaving the other members of the society lingering behind (Bidwell,
Briscoe, Fernandez-Mateo, & Sterling, 2013). These economic and sociopolitical trends have affected social groups with special needs most profoundly.
In lieu of support, the vulnerable individuals stand the highest risk of exclusion from meaningful participation in the job market.
Stuart and colleagues (2013) emphasized the flimsy nature of previously achieved social safeguards in light of international competition and
the politics of flexible labor markets. Fading protection measures have
precipitated mounting social inequalities. To counteract the adverse effects of a political economy of insecurity reflected in growing socioeconomic gaps, the active involvement of communities, social institutions,
and government is necessary (Beck, 2000). In line with this contention,
and drawing on Polanyi, Stuart and colleagues (2013) argue for a revival
of the social justice agenda in order to affirm moral economy; namely, a
countermovement designed to change the nature and dynamics of labor
markets.
Scholars have expressed their concern with regard to equal opportunities of college graduates’ employability. In the current era of uncertainty,
graduates of academic institutions need to adopt a proactive orientation,
to self-manage and maneuver in the job market while developing their careers. Moreau and Leathwood (2006) challenge the neoliberal assumption
of meritocracy, arguing that factors such as social class, gender, ethnicity,
age, disability, and university attendance significantly affect the graduates’
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION

47

employability prospects. The emphasis placed on individual responsibility,
while overlooking social inequalities, bears potentially negative implications for vulnerable college graduates. Thus, individuals with special needs
may find it particularly difficult to embrace a proactive stance in marketing
their merits, which in turn reduces their chances of inclusion in the labor
market (Bridgstock, 2009).

The Interface of Social Justice and Evaluation
The concern for social groups with special needs, while attempting to promote their human rights and equal opportunities, constitutes a central component of social justice. An active role of the evaluators in this regard enables the program participants to express their voices, thereby implanting
the social issue on the public agenda (Lincoln, 1993).
The current article focuses on the role of evaluation in enhancing social justice for a vulnerable social group, the participants of the evaluated program, but also to some extent by the program initiators and the
program staff. Drawing on Rawls’s (1999) conceptualization of social justice, we examine the potential contribution of evaluation to coping with
inequalities and power imbalances in society, thereby fostering equal access to opportunities in the job market. According to Rawls, social justice
means guaranteeing and protecting equal access to civil freedoms, human
rights, and opportunities, and defending the most disadvantaged members
of society.
An active stance of evaluators in promoting social justice is reflected
in studying the social issue, investigating the implementation of a program
designed to engage the core of this social concern. Since research rests on
systematic data collection, its products may provide evidence-based information and thereby amplify the stakeholders’ voices. The quality of usable
knowledge improves due to the participation of various stakeholders in the
research process, provided that cooperative relations among the stakeholders and evaluators have indeed been established. Such bonds enhance the
odds of pooling together resources and sharing knowledge, thus promoting
social goals (Desivilya Syna & Palgi, 2011).

The Evaluation Model: Enhancing Social Justice for Vulnerable
Social Groups—Social Justice in Action
The proposed model addresses the complexity of the evaluator–evaluee relationships while underscoring the strengths and challenges of collaborative
bonds and their potential contribution to social justice.
This framework draws on Abma and Widdershoven’s (2008) typology
concerning evaluator–evaluee relations, emphasizing the potential impact
of social and organizational elements, such as power and other contextual
features, on program quality and success. The classification distinguishes
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

48

EVALUATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN COMPLEX SOCIOPOLITCAL CONTEXTS

four kinds of evaluator bonds with the stakeholders, each corresponding to
different traditions of evaluation.
1. Uninvolved Relationships (the objectivist traditions of evaluation;
Scriven, 1997) stem from the underlying assumption that social relations are irrelevant to evaluation research. Hence, the evaluator embraces the professional stance of an objective and impartial researcher
by refraining from engagement in any social processes or issues to be
advanced by the evaluated project. According to this approach, forging relationships with evaluees, especially involvement in political dynamics, is considered a source of bias and potential contamination of
the research results.
2. Instrumental Relationships (utilization-oriented evaluation; Patton,
1997) are based on the premise that social relations should be managed in order to promote learning. Consequently, the evaluator functions mainly as a consultant, attempting to develop relationships with
the evaluees in a way that fosters utilization of the evaluation findings, thus maximizing learning processes and in turn improving the
project’s quality.
3. The Changing Relationships approach (empowerment, democratic,
participatory, feminist evaluation; Fetterman, 1994; Greene, 2001;
Mertens, 2002) builds on recognition of the political dimension in
evaluation and the need to promote transformation from asymmetrical social relations between the dominant groups and the vulnerable
groups into socially just bonds. Hence, the evaluator’s role is to promote social change through democratic, cooperative processes and active participation of all the partners and stakeholders.
4. Building Relationships as the Essence of Evaluation (relational and care
traditions; Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Parlett & Hamilton, 1972; Stake,
1991) constitutes the fundamental element of the role of the evaluation and the evaluator. Maintaining dialogue among the parties (including the evaluator) on an equal basis constitutes the major aim
in this evaluation approach. The evaluator functions primarily as a
facilitator and guide while emphasizing horizontal, nonhierarchical
approaches and friendly relationships.
To promote social justice—specifically, to increase the odds of equal
employment opportunities for a vulnerable social group—our model emphasizes an active stance of the evaluator in placing the social issue on the
public agenda (Stuart et al., 2013). Such orientation enhances the voices
and empowers the vulnerable group and agents of change acting on their
behalf. The model integrates the changing relations approach in Abma
and Widdershoven’s typology with the notion of a genuine partnership.
The central dimensions of a partnership revolve around non-hierarchical
mutual relationships, built on a cooperative exchange of resources, joint
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION

49

responsibility and decision-making geared to attaining shared goals. Scholars have made a distinction between genuine partnership based on mutual
trust among the parties and a pragmatic form aimed at distribution of risks,
mainly following self-interest (Desivilya Syna & Palgi, 2011).
Developing genuine partnerships means building relationships among
the partners through four components: (1) negotiation, (2) coordination,
(3) power balancing (empowerment), and (4) reflection and learning. This
entails devoting parallel attention to structural and process elements. Addressing structural elements involves managing the interdependence and
power relations between the partners by means of appropriate division of
tasks and empowerment. The process aspects entail negotiation of purpose,
developing shared vision, design and practices with regard to the partnership, constructing mechanisms for coordination of communications,
knowledge sharing, decision making, and conflict engagement. Attending
to both the structural and process aspects is essential for developing commitment to the partnership, building trust among partners, and integrating the embraced cooperative values with coherent action (Desivilya Syna,
Rottman, & Raz, 2014).
Our model is premised on the idea that building genuine partnership
between the evaluators and all the stakeholders can enhance the generation of usable and evidence based knowledge derived from a variety of perspectives (Desivilya Syna & Palgi, 2011). This in turn precipitates deeper
understanding of the social issue that the program addresses, in particular comprehending the concerns of the participants, members of vulnerable and marginalized groups. Genuine partnership also corresponds to the
changing relationship evaluation approach. By creating collaborative and
inclusive bonds, it promotes democratic processes of mutual responsibility,
involvement, and meaningful participation of all the parties through ongoing dialogue among the evaluators and the stakeholders. Genuine partnership also fosters empowerment of the program participants by recognizing
the impact of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic context, consequently
developing power asymmetry sensitivity (Desivilya Syna & Rottman, 2012).

Implementation of the Social Justice in Action Evaluation Model
Prior to discussing the modes of the model implementation, we present the
case study.
It constitutes a follow-up investigation of an innovative program that
was established to promote the employment integration of learning disabled
college graduates.
A literature review and expert opinions suggested that the transition
from academic studies to work–life poses marked challenges for the learning disabled (Doren, Lindstrom, Zane, & Johnson, 2007). Beyond issues
related to formal learning, graduates with learning disabilities experience
difficulties in the personal, interpersonal, and societal arenas.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

50

EVALUATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN COMPLEX SOCIOPOLITCAL CONTEXTS

The transition from academic studies to employment requires active
coping in the context of increasingly competitive job market (Beck, 2000;
Stuart et al., 2013): job search, getting a job, adjustment to the workplace,
sustainability at work, and the development of a meaningful career. Due to
the personal vulnerability of the learning disabled graduates and the harsh
external circumstances, their odds of effective assimilation in the job market
appear markedly mitigated. Counteracting these impediments requires a
tailored-made support program. Such a project ought to offer assistance at
the individual and system level (Madaus, 2008).
The support center for students with learning disabilities at a college
in Northern Israel responded to this call by founding an innovative program of occupational counseling for graduates with learning disabilities.
The project supports and prepares the participants for the transition into
the job market. It comprises three phases: (1) an academic course and experiential workshop on the transition from college to job market, psychological and occupational evaluation, design of an individual career plan, and
assistance in the job search; (2) assimilation of the graduates in workplaces,
followed-up by the program staff; (3) a follow-up of program participants
in their respective jobs, providing tailor-made assistance.
The program plan stipulates that the staff collaborate and coordinate
its activities with occupational assistance centers, manpower organizations,
governmental authorities, and employers. The project operated in an experimental mode for three years, involving more than 80 participants.
The evaluation research accompanied the program for three years, aiming to provide usable knowledge to the initiators and program staff, thereby
maximizing its fit to the participants’ needs. To enhance social justice for the
participants—namely, to increase equal opportunities of employment—we
adopted the social justice in action model: integrating the changing relations approach with building a genuine partnership.
The model was embedded in three parallel ways: (1) designing a framework which corresponded to the emerging needs in the research setting; (2)
employing the formative evaluation function of changing and improving the
project in the course of its operation; (3) timely transmission of the research
findings to policy and decision-making bodies. Thus, the evaluation team
endeavored jointly with the evaluees to grasp the theory-in-action underlying the program and look for ways to advance the project. In line with the
social justice in action model, we invested considerable efforts in building
a genuine partnership: developing collaborative bonds with the program
initiators, the program staff, and the participants.
To learn about the project from a variety of perspectives, semistructured and open individual interviews and focus groups were conducted
with the program initiators, with the staff, and with some of the students
and graduates. In accordance with the model, the individual and group interviews attempted to foster dialogue among the parties while creating a
cooperative climate, thus enhancing the expression of genuine voices.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION

51

We also analyzed the questionnaire responses of the participants concerning their perceptions of various program components. Subsequently,
the evaluators and the program staff jointly developed tools for documenting the participation patterns of the program participants and upgraded the
feedback questionnaires. Furthermore, the evaluators observed some of the
program activities, such as a workshop designed to empower the participants and impart skills for job search. Periodically, the evaluation findings
were presented and discussed at the policy makers’ forums, such as the
steering committee of the project, composed of stakeholders from various
governmental bodies.
Learning about the program on the basis of systematic analysis of a variety of data sources and diverse perspectives allowed us to understand the
needs and wishes of different stakeholders. Conducting informal conversations with the participants in the course of observing the project’s activities and facilitating focus groups with the staff helped to build cooperative
evaluator–evaluee relationships. We also initiated periodic updating meetings with the program director and the coordinator to monitor program implementation processes, thereby learning in real time about the pertinent
issues engaging the staff. Moreover, we held periodic meetings with the
project staff who were devoted to in-depth discussion of a specific query
each time, such as definitions of success. Another instance of promoting
a genuine partnership was a discourse addressing the overall design of the
program’s work procedures, which emerged largely from the cumulative experiences of the staff members. This task served as an input for developing
strategic plans to promote the project’s sustainability. A similar focus group
technique was used to develop an information management system (MIS)
to support the follow-up of the project and encourage continuous learning.
In a similar vein, we initiated discussions with the participants, attempting to grasp their perceptions of the program goals, operations, and
other issues of concern. For instance, parallel to the focus group with the
staff addressing definitions of program success, a workshop was organized
for the participants where the same issue was discussed from their perspective. The workshop was designed by the professional director in cooperation
with the evaluation team, utilizing the expertise of both partners: The professional director facilitated the workshop, and the evaluators documented
it and analyzed the emerging findings. This was a manifestation of the structural element of genuine partnership building: division of tasks in accordance with the partners’ specialties, which enhances power balancing.
Overall, the design and conduct of meetings with the program staff and
the participants reflected the four elements of building genuine partnership:
(1) negotiation (discussions of core issues such as definition of success,
work procedures, strategic plans), (2) coordination (periodical updating
meetings), (3) power balancing (meetings of the evaluators with evaluees
on a cooperative basis), and (4) reflection and learning (jointly designing
MIS to support learning).
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

52

EVALUATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN COMPLEX SOCIOPOLITCAL CONTEXTS

Thus, aside from the substantive goals of the meetings, the fundamental goal of building genuine evaluator–evaluee partnership was everpresent. This aim was based on a joint motivation to advance a shared goal
of promoting social justice for the program participants—creating equal job
opportunities for the learning-disabled. Creating synergy between knowledge based on practice with the systematic data collection and analysis underscored by the evaluation team enhanced the program operations and
expression of genuine voices by different partners while interacting with
multiple stakeholders, each embracing a distinct professional orientation
(Desivilya Syna & Palgi, 2011).

Conclusions: The Role of Evaluation in Fostering Social Justice
This article presented an evaluation model carrying the potential to foster
social justice for a vulnerable population. The framework integrated the
changing relationship view of evaluation and the notion of genuine partnership (Abma & Widdershoven, 2008; Desivilya Syna & Palgi, 2011). It
was illustrated by the evaluation of a program supporting college graduates
with learning disabilities in their transition from college to the job market.
The evaluated project responded to the micro-level individual needs
of the learning disabled college graduates identified by special education
scholars (Madaus, 2008) and addressed the macro-level—the systemic necessity to counteract the growing inequalities in job-market opportunities,
especially salient in the disadvantaged position of vulnerable social groups
(Beck, 2000; Bidwell et al., 2013; Stuart et al., 2013). The evaluation model
embraces an active stance in an attempt to relay the project’s cause and actual accomplishments to policy makers calling for their actions in restoring
social justice in the job market. The changing relations view of evaluation
and genuine partnership was structured into the logic of the model. Namely,
communication of the findings derived from the systematic, ongoing, and
collaborative research process, involving the evaluees, can markedly enhance the evaluators’ contribution to equal opportunities in the employment arena.
Indeed, the evaluation validated the major assumption of the program:
Students with learning disabilities need special support in the transition
phase from academic studies to employment. The participants appear aware
of the demands placed on job seekers by the competitive job market, underscoring individual responsibility, entrepreneurship and self-presentation,
which they perceive as lacking (Madaus, 2008; Stuart et al., 2013). The
program has accomplished the task of empowering the participants and imparting relevant job searching skills rather effectively. The project has also
made some progress at the macro-level: enhancing employers’ awareness
regarding learning disabilities and the need to mainstream employees with
such characteristics in the job market; building partnerships with employers and other relevant organizations; and follow-up of graduates at their
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION

53

workplaces. Attempts to improve the latter component were addressed in
joint evaluator–evaluee forums.
Reflecting upon the insights stemming from the implementation of the
social justice in action evaluation model, we can note the following accomplishments:
• In-depth understanding of the needs of the program participants and pro-

gram staff;

• Ability of evaluators to serve as a sounding board on behalf of the program

participants with regard to policy makers;

• Enhanced involvement of the program participants and program staff,

creating genuine partnership; and

• Development of a theory of practice through the partnership.

Notwithstanding the strengths, we also encountered two considerable
challenges:
• Management of the intricacies of the evaluator–evaluee relationships, es-

pecially engaging the complexities of power relations and maintaining
the partnership;
• Sustaining the momentum of a “snapshot” evaluation and leveraging its
effects on a sociopolitical agenda—fostering equal employment opportunities for vulnerable social groups while not impeding the quality of
research and validity of the findings (House, 2014).
Engaging the above challenges and queries paves the way for future learning
terrains and research directions.
We would like to conclude by drawing on the argument proposed by
the Dardenne brothers, directors of the film The Kid With a Bike. They maintained that establishing relationships with others is an essential element in
the individual’s ability to survive physically and emotionally. They endeavor
to prove this contention by means of their cinematographic activities. In a
similar vein, we as evaluators presume that social justice cannot be sustained without individuals, professionals, and organizations in all sectors
building relationships and forming partnerships.
References
Abma, T., & Widdershoven, A .M. (2008). Evaluation and/as social relation. Evaluation,
14, 209–225.
Beck, U. (2000). The brave new world of work. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The employment relationship and inequality: How and why changes in employment practices are shaping
rewards in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 61–121.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

54

EVALUATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN COMPLEX SOCIOPOLITCAL CONTEXTS

Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate
employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44.
Desivilya Syna, H., & Palgi, M. (2011). Introduction. The nature of partnerships and
the processes of their formation: Juxtaposing conflict and cooperation. In H. Desivilya
Syna & M. Palgi (Eds.), The paradox in partnership: The role of conflict in partnership
building (pp. 1–18). Bentham Science e-Books.
Desivilya Syna, H., & Rottman, A. (2012). The role of power asymmetry sensitivity in
Jewish–Arab partnerships. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(2), 219–241.
Desivilya Syna, H., Rottman, A., & Raz, M. (2014). Partnership among stakeholders as
a vehicle for promoting good practices in diversity management: The case of job market integration of college graduates with learning disabilities. In M. Karatas Ozkan,
K. Nicolopoulou, & M. F. Ozbilgin (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A diversity perspective. Cheltenham Glos, England: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Doren, B., Lindstrom, L., Zane, C., & Johnson, P. (2007). The role of program and alterable personal factors in postschool employment outcomes. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 30(3), 171–183.
Fetterman, D. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1–6.
Greene, J. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation: A relational perspective. Evaluation, 7(2),
181–203.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
House, E. R. (2014). Origins of the ideas in Evaluating with Validity. In J. C. Griffith
& B. Montrosse-Moorhead (Eds.), Revisiting truth, beauty, and justice: Evaluating with
validity in the 21st century. New Directions for Evaluation, 142, 9–15.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1993). I and thou: Method, voice, and roles in research with the silenced.
In D. McLaughlin & W. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lives (pp. 29–47). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Madaus, J. W. (2008). Employment self-disclosure rates and rationales of university graduates with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4),
291–299.
Mertens, D. (2002). The evaluator’s role in the transformative context. In K. E. Ryan &
T. S. Schwandt (Eds.), Exploring evaluator role and identity (pp. 17–36). Greenwich,
CT: IAP.
Moreau, M. P., & Leathwood, C. (2006). Graduates’ employment and the discourse of
employability: A critical analysis. Journal of Education and Work, 19(4), 305–324.
Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the
study of innovatory programs. In G. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation review studies annual 1,
pp. 140–157. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: New century edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Scriven, M. (1997). Truth and objectivity in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish
(Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 477–500). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Stake, R. E. (1991). Retrospective on “The countenance of educational evaluation.” In
M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Philips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: A quarter century: Ninetieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 67–88).
Chicago, IL: NSSE and University of Chicago Press.
Stuart, M., Grugulis, I., Tomlinson, J., Forde, C., & MacKenzie, R. (2013). Reflections
on work and employment into the 21st century: Between equal rights, force decides.
Work, Employment, and Society, 27(3), 379–395.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION

55

HELENA DESIVILYA SYNA is a professor of social and organizational psychology,
currently the chair of the department of MA studies in organizational development and consulting at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel. She conducts research on social conflict, organizational behavior–interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup relations, and diversity management (gender, national
minorities, people with special needs).
AMIT ROTTMAN is a PhD student in anthropology of education, University of
Haifa, Israel, and specializes in the areas of social class and schooling, diversity
in intergroup relations, and qualitative research.
MICHAL RAZ is a PhD student in the Swiss Center for Conflict Research, Management and Resolution, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, and specializes in organizational sociology, diversity management, social conflict, research
methods, and statistics.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev