The Srebrenica Exhibition

In February 2017, an exhibition was opened in Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) telling the story of the Bosnian war (1992-1995) and the Srebrenica genocide (1995). In this article we describe how the exhibition was designed and we reflect on the impact of the exhibition on the processes of restorative justice and social reconstruction. Leading question is: Does the exhibition successfully construct a shared sense of truth about the Srebrenica genocide? This evaluative question demands insight in the concept of truth and, more specific, in the debate about plural truths and multiple narratives. En febrero de 2017, se inauguró en Srebrenica (Bosnia-Herzegovina) una exposición que narraba la historia de la Guerra de Bosnia (1992-1995) y el genocidio de Srebrenica (1995). En este artículo, describimos cómo se diseñó la exposición, y reflexionamos sobre el impacto de la exposición en los procesos de justicia restaurativa y reconstrucción social. La pregunta que nos guía es: ¿Consigue la exposición construir un sentido compartido de verdad sobre el genocidio de Srebrenica? Esta pregunta evaluativa exige indagar en el concepto de verdad y, más específicamente, en el debate sobre pluralidad de verdades y multiplicidad de narrativas.

Combining multiple approaches to valuing in the MUVA female economic empowerment programme

Evaluation and economics each have distinct approaches to valuing. These approaches are traditionally separated by disciplinary boundaries. However, they can and should be combined. Value for money (VFM), in particular, is a shared domain of the two disciplines, because it is an evaluative question about the economic problem of resource use. A theoretical and practical model for combining valuing approaches has been developed through doctoral research. This article presents and reflects on an example – an international development programme where VFM has been assessed using mixed methods (qualitative, quantitative and economic). Under this approach, evaluative reasoning provides the means for integrating economic values with other criteria and evidence. Deliberation with stakeholders strengthens the valuing process, enhancing validity, credibility and use.

The Methodology of “Varieties of Democracy” (V-Dem)1

This article describes and discusses the new generation of methodological responses to measuring democracy and related issues generated by Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). V-Dem is distinct in several regards in addition to its unique level of disaggregation, by the combination of: historical data extending back to 1900 and for a large selection among them to 1789 for many countries in the world; use of multiple, independent coders for each evaluative question; inter-coder reliability tests incorporated into a custom designed Bayesian item-response theory measurement model; provision of confidence bounds for all point estimates associated with expert-coded questions as well as for all indices; multiple indices reflecting varying theories of democracy; fully transparent aggregation procedures; and that all data are made freely available, including original coder-level judgments (exclusive of any personal identifying information).

Three Kinds of Opinion Comparison: The Triadic Model

This article introduces the triadic model, which proposes that the social comparison of opinion is best considered in terms of 3 different evaluative questions: preference assessment (i.e., “Do I like X?”), belief assessment (i.e., “Is X correct?”), and preference prediction (i.e., “Will I like X?”). Each evaluative question is associated with a different comparison dynamic. The triadic model proposes that comparisons with persons similar in related attributes have special importance for preference assessment. For belief assessment, comparisons with persons of more advantaged status (or “expert”) are most meaningful, although comparison targets also should hold certain basic values in common (the “similar expert”). Finally, in preference prediction, the most meaningful comparisons are with a person who has already experienced X (a proxy) and who exhibits either consistency (but not necessarily similarity) in related attributes or past preferences. Prior research and 4 new studies are described that support the theory.