How Far Dare an Evaluator Go toward Saving the World?: Redux, Update, and a Reflective Practice Facilitation Tool

In 2004, Robert Stake published a provocative article that asked: "How Far Dare an Evaluator Go Toward Saving the World?" This question raises the issue of what role evaluators' values play in the conduct of evaluations. Following review of Stake's premises, I present value statements from a diverse group of 40 evaluators working with philanthropic foundations. The results update and revise Stake's list of "six advocacies common in evaluation." The findings capture changes in evaluation language and substantive concerns over the last 15 years regarding evaluators' values and engagement. The conclusion affirms Stake's original overarching principle. In closing, I offer an additional concern toward saving the world not on Stake's list or that of the evaluators sampled: global sustainability and environmental justice in the face of the global pandemic and climate emergency. This process of inquiry generated a facilitation tool for use by evaluators, presented here, to support reflective practice about evaluators' values.