Riding Shotgun Down Evaluations’ Highways: A Tribute to the Legacy of George Julnes

George's untimely passing this year was an earthquake in my world. Why George? He is the last colleague I would ever imagine leaving us this early. I was so fortunate to be working with him closer than ever this year as one of his Associate Editors for the American Journal Evaluation (AJE). He seemed so happy and healthy, and it is unbelievable I will only hear his voice in my head moving forward as I finish up the AJE editing we were working on together. However, the memories of our evaluation adventures and the many insights he generously shared with me about the field of evaluation will live with me until it is my time, and his legacy will inform evaluation theory and practice forever.

George and I had numerous discussions and shared many meaningful evaluation adventures over the years. As I reflect, one of the themes that emerges is he mostly seemed to prefer the drivers’ seat, while I was happy to ride shotgun and support him as we navigated some of evaluations’ most challenging highways. Space limits prevent me from outlining and describing the plethora of major contributions George made to advancing evaluation theory and practice across his prolific career. I was thrilled when his impressive body of written work was honored by the American Evaluation Association (AEA) with the Paul F. Lazarsfeld Evaluation Theory Award in 2015. Instead, I will provide a few brief reflections related to working closely with George on topics such as “What counts as credible and actionable evidence in evaluation practice?” in our adventures when we served on the AEA Board together; and on riding shotgun with him as he was serving as Editor-in-Chief for AJE during a global pandemic.

So what counts as credible and actionable evidence, Professor Julnes? It depends on the context you are working in, Professor Donaldson. George was not a fan of the raging debates in the field over the years about the superiority of paradigms, approaches, and methods for evaluating high stake evaluation questions. He seemed to believe most evaluation approaches and methods had their place in a large evaluation tent. A better question in his view was how do we choose methods in relation to the contexts we face in practice. He and his close friend and colleague, Debra Rog, emphasized that:

Efforts to advance our understanding of what counts as actionable evidence need to consider multiple perspectives, not simply those of evaluators. It is important to know who the decisions makers are who needs the evidence and the standards of rigor expected in the area before a method is chosen. (Julnes & Rog, 2015, p. 222)

One of George's important contributions to our field is his description, in great detail across multiple publications, of how to take into account contextual influences on the adequacy and appropriateness of method choice in evaluation practice (e.g., Julnes & Rog, 2007, 2015). This is especially important because his work encourages new and emerging evaluators to be open-minded about evaluation approaches and method choice. He encouraged us to explore how to best use the vast array of evaluation approaches and methods we have developed over the years and to not shy away from developing innovative methods that fit the rapidly changing evaluation context of our times.

This openness and respect for diverse perspectives favorably influenced his work as an AEA Board member. No matter how heated the Board conversations or debates became, George was always our statesman driving us to higher ground. He stayed calm and had a unique ability to speak softly and help the Board see possibilities for finding a common ground. I remember agreeing with him strongly on a few issues that the Board voted down. I mostly felt upset and disappointed, while he kept his typical calm demeanor and assured me the issues we were advocating for would be addressed in time. And it turned out wise George was usually right.

George reached out to me in December 2020. We spent over an hour talking about the pandemic and how it had dramatically changed our worlds and outlook, and possibly the field of evaluation forever. I think we concluded that there was no going back to the “good old days” anymore, and that this was an opportunity and a responsibility to do what we can to help evaluation transform and fit well in its new evolving context. I was so energized by his vision for the role of the AJE in this new world we are facing, I accepted his invitation to serve as one of his Associate Editors starting January 1, 2021.

It was such an honor and pleasure to serve AJE with George in the driver's seat for most of 2021. I could have never have imagined 2021 would be our last drive on our long evaluation journey together. Fortunately, there was more time to talk about life and the state of the world on our last drive. I learned more about George on this ride than on most of the others combined. I learned George cared deeply about the field of evaluation and its’ potential to improve the world and about his work as Editor-in-Chief with his beloved AJE partner Managing Editor Rachael Lawrence. He was so optimistic about the importance of the cumulative evaluation knowledge we have developed over the past three decades and about the “potential” role of good evaluation as at least a partial solution to many of the societal challenges we face.

I also learned there was only one thing in life more important to George than evaluation—his family and friendships. He made it clear to me often this past year that his wife Professor Patria de Lancer Julnes and their children—those nurturing and comforting him at the end—were who he admired and cared about most in his life. Evaluation for the purpose of improving the lives of others and the world was George's calling. His evaluation friendships, mentoring, and many scholarly contributions over a long period of time, are all part of his legacy that will live on, and is the gift he has left us to cherish and celebrate.