Critical evaluation in social work aims to enhance human well-being and meet basic needs, particularly for vulnerable groups. It promotes evaluation and research to develop knowledge, examines emerging ideas, and uses evidence in practice. Critical evaluation follows social work's mission and values. It employs empowering, emancipatory, feminist, and other critically oriented approaches directed by theories like anti-oppressive theories. Knowledge formation considers social and political contexts, and evidence is used to advocate for disadvantaged groups. The process specifies needed knowledge and justifies evaluation before selecting methods, collecting data, analyzing results, and developing conclusions and practices.

1. Critical Evaluation in Social Work
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 1

2. Why critical evaluation? According to
NASW
• The primary mission of the social work profession is
to enhance human wellbeing and help meet the
basic human needs of all people, with particular
attention to the needs and empowerment of people
who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty
• Social workers should promote and facilitate
evaluation and research to contribute to the
development of knowledge
• Social workers should critically examine and keep
current with emerging knowledge relevant to social
work and fully use evaluation and research
evidence in their professional practice
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 2

3. Also according to NASW
• Social workers should promote the general welfare of
society, from local to global levels, and the development
of people, their communities, and their environments.
• Critical evaluation follows the mission, values, and
ethical principles of social work (Kivipelto 2005, 2006;
Kivipelto & Yliruka 2012, 103)
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 3

4. Critical evaluation: critically oriented
evaluation approaches
• Empowering evaluation (Adams 2003)
• Empowerment evaluation (Dullea & Mullender 1999)
• Emancipatory qualitative evaluation (Whitmore 2001)
• Transformative participatory evaluation (Brisolara 1998;
Cousins & Whitmore 1998)
• Feminist evaluation (Humphries 1999)
• Critical Reflection (Fook, Gardner 2003)
• Political approaches in evidence-based social work
(Gray, Plath & Webb 2009, 64-67)
• Critical evaluations are directed by theories of critical
social science
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 4

5. • Critical evaluation is cautious about ”the temptation”
to treat any claims as truth and to regard the
scientific method as having replaced the essential
process of judgement-making about ”the good”
(Everitt & Hardiker 1996, 51-52).
• (Therefore) critical evaluation needs considerable
and total commitment to the ethics, values and
politics that only critical theories involve (Everitt &
Hardiker 1996, 23-25, 98-100).
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 5

6. Critical evaluation theories
Critical evaluation is based on critical theories such as
• Modern critical theories, e.g. anti-theories (anti-
oppressive, -racist etc), empowering approaches,
feminist theories which can give quite exact
idicators for critical evaluation.
• Postmodern critical theories e.g. postmodern
feminism, Foucault´s theory, postmodern critical
theories which lead to evaluate how social work
promotes fair and equal speech and interaction
situations and discourses. (Kivipelto 2006.)
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 6

7. Critical evaluation methods
• Usually cooperative, narrative, participatory and
dialogical, specially when using postmodern
theories
• Also traditional research methods are used,
specially when theoretical background comes from
modern theories (questionnaire, interview)
• It is possible and also important to integrate the
evaluation into daily social work
• Evaluation steps should be accepted by all
participants
• Critical evaluation should be transparent to all
participants
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 7

8. Knowledge-formation
• Broad view for evidence-gathering and knowldge-
formation: more than scientific data constitues
knowledge for practice.
• Evaluation is inherently a political activity. All data
and information are political reflecting power
differences and dynamics that are features of social
life.(Gray, Plath & Webb 2009;Taylor & Balloch,
2005.)
• Therefore, knowledge-formation processes are
considered in the wider social and political context.
• The evidence is used to raise awareness of issues
for disadvantaged and marginalized groups. (Gray,
Plath & Webb 2009.)
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 8

9. Critical evaluation process
(illustrative)
1. It is specified, what kind of knowledge we need,
how and to what purposes the information is going
to be produced
2. Justifications of evaluation are analysed and
specified with stakeholders/participants
3. Appropriate theories and methods are selected
4. Data is collected and documented
5. The results are compiled, analyzed and dealt with
participants
6. Conclusions are made and practices are
developed accordingly
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 9

10. Conclusions
• The success of critical evaluation can be seen in
many ways; for example, if the participants’ self-
esteem has increased or their personal relationships
have improved (Kivipelto & Yliruka 2012, 113).
• Critical evaluation discloses how evaluation
supports or challenges certain knowledge and
power structures.
• Critical evaluation facilitates critical thinking,
enables changes towards equality, challenges
oppression, and empowers marginalized and
silenced groups (Kivipelto & Yliruka 2012).
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 10

11. References
• Adams, Robert (2003) Social Work and Empowerment, 3rd Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire & New York.
• Brisolara, Sharon: The History of Participatory Evaluation and Current Debates in the Field. In: Whitmore,
Elizabeth (ed.) Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation (1998): 80, p.
25-41 Dullea, Karen & Mullender, Audrey (1999) Evaluation and Empowerment. In: Shaw, Ian & Lishman, Joyce
(ed.) Evaluation and Social Work Practice. Sage Publications, London, 81-100.
• Cousins, J. Bradley & Whitmore, Elizabeth (1998) Framing Participatory Evaluation. In: Whitmore, Elizabeth (ed.)
Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5-23.
• Everitt, Angela & Hardiker, Pauline (1996 ) Evaluating for Good Practice, Macmillan, London.
• Fook, Jan (2002) Social Work. Critical Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks & New
Delhi.
• Gardner, Fiona (2003) Critical Reflection in Community-Based Evalaution. Qualitative Social Work,197-212.
• Gray, Mel & Plath, Debbie & Webb, Stephen (2009) evidence-Based Social Work. A Critical Stance. London:
Routledge.
• Humphries, Beth (1999) Feminist Evaluation. In: Shaw, Ian & Lishman, Joyce (eds.) Evaluation and Social Work
Practice, Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi, 118-132.
• Kivipelto, Minna (2005) Critical reflection on the evaluation plan of the VARPUNEN-project. Hallinnon Tutkimus 24
(4), 3-15. http://elektra.helsinki.fi/se/h/0359-6680/24/4/critical.pdf
• Kivipelto, Minna (2006) Sosiaalityön kriittinen arviointi. Sosiaalityön kriittisen arvioinnin perustelut, teoriat ja
menetelmät. Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun julkaisusarja A3. Seinäjoki. Väitöskirja. [Critical Evaluation in Social
Work. Justifications, theories and methods for the critical evaluation of social work. Doctoral Thesis.]
• Kivipelto, Minna & Yliruka, Laura (2012) Mirror method as an approach for critical evaluation in social work. 13(2)
Critical Social Work. http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/
• NASW. Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp
• Taylor, David & Balloch, Susan (2005). The politics of evaluation: an overview. In D. Taylor & S. Balloch (Eds.),
The politics of evaluation. Participation and policy implementation (pp. 1–17). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
• Whitmore, Elisabeth (2001) ”People Listened to What We Had to Say”: Reflections on an Emancipatory
Qualitative Evaluation. In: Shaw, Ian & Gould, Nick. Qualitative Research in Social Work, Sage Publications,
London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi, 83-99.
06/08/2013 Minna Kivipelto, THL 11