IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v10y1986i3p259-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Relativism in Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • H.A. Alexander

    (The University of Judaism, Los Angeles)

Abstract

This article examines a group of defenses of qualitative evaluation methods that are based upon a hard relativistic interpretation of the work of Thomas Kuhn. Hard relativism holds that (1) truth is a function of framework, and (2) all frameworks are equally legitimate because they are only to be criticized on the basis of internal criteria. Soft relativism accepts the first point but denies the second. It is argued, following Karl Popper, that hard relativism is an indefensible position. A defense of qualitative evaluation based upon this position, therefore, will be equally shaky. Kuhn, however, is a soft—not a hard—relativist. Thus, a more promising defense of qualitive evaluation may be found in a soft-relativist interpretation of Kuhn's analysis of the nature of scientific discovery.

Suggested Citation

  • H.A. Alexander, 1986. "Cognitive Relativism in Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 10(3), pages 259-280, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:10:y:1986:i:3:p:259-280
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8601000301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8601000301
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8601000301?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:10:y:1986:i:3:p:259-280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.