Abstract
Dan Stufflebeam was a major influence worldwide in the field of evaluation. As the principal architect of the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model, he worked tirelessly over a period of more than 50 years to demonstrate the model’s applicability across a wide range of disciplines. He not only continued to enhance the CIPP model through numerous publications over the years but also conducted many evaluation projects around the world, thus demonstrating his rather unique ability to seamlessly traverse between theory and practical application. His work in the field of evaluation is legend. Rather than recounting most of his many contributions to the field, I prefer to remember some personal experiences that I had with Dan as a colleague and friend.
I first met Dan in the 1970s when he came to Dallas as part of Frank Chase’s team of external evaluators that Nolan Estes, then Superintendent of the Dallas Independent School District, employed to evaluate all operations of the district. Dan was assigned the task of evaluating the District’s Research and Evaluation Department. At that time, the Dallas Research and Evaluation Department employed about 20 PhDs, drawn from major universities across the country, with primary expertise in statistics, measurement, and classic research design. We were applying the basic principles of experimental and quasi-experimental design to the evaluation of numerous educational programs. We were intuitively implementing context evaluation through our institutional research program and product evaluation with some process evaluation through our program evaluation branch. Input evaluations and most process evaluations were implemented primarily by program managers, which meant that the quality varied greatly. Dan was able to work with us and demonstrate how the CIPP model was applicable to the work that we were doing. One direct result of this interaction was the creation of an applied research unit that was charged with implementing systematic input evaluation. Those early interactions with Dan were invaluable to the development of the department and resulted in a friendship that lasted for over 40 years.
Over the years, Dan and I worked on many projects. In the early 1970s, Dan was the founder and director of the Evaluation Center at Ohio State University. One of our major projects during that period was the development of a set of competencies for educational evaluators that included statistics, measurement, research design, evaluation, and computer programming. Dan subsequently moved to become Director of the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University (WMU). Meanwhile the need for data entry and organizing people, of whom we had many, evaporated as data processing evolved from dependence on large mainframe computers, which required many hours of personnel time to analyze data, to the use of desktop machines. This effectively meant that PhD-level personnel, with help from a few skilled programmers, could efficiently do their own data entry and organization. We thus had a number of people whose skill sets were obsolete. Responding to this need, Dan and I used the aforementioned evaluator competencies to create a master’s degree program in educational evaluation that was taught on site in Dallas through WMU. We then developed competency-based examinations, so that program graduates could advance in the department by demonstrating mastery of important competencies.
Dan’s major professional goal was to facilitate the use of evaluative data as a major factor in educational decision-making. To that end, he was involved in a number of projects that were designed to improve the overall field of evaluation. He was the chair of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation that produced the Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials in 1981 which subsequently morphed into The Program Evaluation Standards, chaired by James Sanders, in 1994. These important publications established a framework for valid evaluation of educational programs and gave program managers a guide to determine whether their programs were being evaluated fairly and objectively. He also chaired the Joint Committee in the development of personnel evaluation standards that resulted in the publication of The Personnel Evaluation Standards in 1988. He also was one of the founders of the American Evaluation Association.
In addition to being a serious academician, Dan had a great sense of humor. We used to meet at mutually assessable locations to work on collaborative papers. One such location was Hot Springs, AR. The owner of the hotel we were staying at took up a position in the lobby of the hotel every morning and seemed not to move throughout the entire day. At the time, we joked about whether he was alive or a stuffed replica of the original owner. For years after, we joked about the stuffed replica of the hotel owner and talked about returning to the hotel to see whether he had moved or was still sitting in the same position. Dan also had a ranch and would recount some of his more humorous experiences with his cattle including the impact of fermented apples on bovine behavior and the actions of his prize bull stampeding by the older cows to get to the young heifers when released for breeding season.
Dan enjoyed having fun. None of us who participated will ever forget our recent experiences on Kentucky’s bourbon trail. Dan, his sons Kevin and Joe, Jim Sanders, Jerry Horn, Bob Rodosky, and I sampled about 30 different bourbons over a 3-day period. During that experience, we had a lot of time to talk over old times and catch up on recent events. The last time I talked to Dan we were talking about planning a future trip to the lesser known distilleries that had their own bourbon trail. Now that Dan is gone, I doubt that we will ever make the trip since it wouldn’t be the same without him.
For Dan, life was not all fun and games. In a horrible accident, Dan lost a leg when hit by a bus after a Michigan State–Ohio State football game. He went through emergency surgery to save his life, but due to the tenseness of the situation, the surgery was not as clean as it could have been. As a result, Dan was in a great deal of pain and discomfort for some 20 years. In addition to being a source of constant irritation, the accident necessitated a major change in lifestyle. Dan had enjoyed ranching on his land in Kalamazoo, but the accident forced him to give it up because he couldn’t get around in the pastures. He would tell the story of getting his leg stuck in a snow bank and having to be pulled out by a John Deere all-terrain vehicle. His son Joe told me that he had recently located a new prosthesis manufacturer and was in good spirits about the prospect of significantly reducing the pain that he suffered.
For those of us who knew him, in addition to being a world-renowned evaluator, Dan was a great friend. When I was in the Cleveland Clinic in the late 1970s, Dan took the time out of his busy schedule to travel from Kalamazoo to Cleveland to visit me and offer encouragement. While I retired to my ranch and refused any additional work outside of ranch management, Dan continued to write and actively participate in the field of evaluation. The field will miss him. He was an invaluable participant in the continued refinement and development of the art and process of evaluation. His friends will miss his sharp wit and seemingly endless energy. I will miss his wry sense of humor as well as the feeling that Dan was someone who, as a friend, could be counted on no matter the situation. He leaves a rich legacy on both a personal and professional level.