Authenticity

Fourth Generation Evaluation Research

In the approach, known as Fourth Generation Evaluation, five authenticity criteria are listed. The first one [Page 69]is fairness, which refers to how different constructions are presented, checked and clarified in a balanced way so that the multiple perspectives that exist in any research project are achieved. The second criterion is ontological authenticity, by which is meant that individual participants' own experiences are enhanced in that they now have more information and can use it in a more sophisticated manner. The third criterion is educative authenticity, whereby participants' understanding and appreciation of others' constructions are enhanced. The fourth criterion is catalytic authenticity, whereby action is stimulated and facilitated by the evaluation process. Finally, tactical authenticity refers to the extent to which participants are empowered to take action. These criteria are grounded in constructivism and mark ways of assessing the quality of Fourth Generation Evaluation research.

Authenticity as First Person Practice

An alternative approach is to understand authenticity as first person practice within action research. Here the invariant processes of human knowing and acting—experience, understanding, judging, deciding and taking action—form a method that is grounded in

• being attentive to data of sense and of consciousness (experience);
• exploring intelligently to envisage possible explanations of that data (understanding);
• judging soundly, preferring as probable or certain the explanations which provide the best account for the data (judgement); and
• taking responsibility for one's actions.

From this method four imperatives emerge that frame the notion of authenticity and provide a process of how action researchers can seek to be authentic. The four imperatives are (1) be attentive to the data, (2) be intelligent in inquiry, (3) be reasonable in making judgements and (4) be responsible in making decisions and in taking action.

As is true of anyone, action researchers may fail in their efforts to be to be authentic. While they ask themselves what they are to do and want to make it intelligible and reasonable, they may be selective in their attentiveness. They may avoid difficult evidence and limit their questioning. They may fail to be responsible. There is no guarantee that they always attend to experience and the search for understanding. They can be inattentive and miss or ignore data. They can distort data. They can turn a blind eye by refusing to ask certain questions, by ignoring awkward or disconfirming questions and by not facing unresolved feelings. While the desire to know manifests itself in attentive questioning, so also there are fears which block and divert this questioning: censoring, repressing, controlling symbols of feeling and imagining, selecting what they choose to question. They can make unreasonable judgements, settling for what is comfortable rather than for what the questions evoke. They can resist the evidence and try to escape responsibility.

...