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.

2004年，罗伯特·斯特克（Robert Stake）发表了一篇挑衅性的文章，该文章问道：“一位评估家去拯救世界有多大胆？” 这个问题提出了一个问题，即评价者的价值观在评价过程中起什么作用。在对Stake的场所进行回顾之后，我介绍了由40位与慈善基金会合作的评估者组成的多元化陈述。结果更新并修订了Stake的“评估中常见的六项主张”列表。调查结果反映了过去15年中评估语言的变化以及对评估者的价值观和参与度的实质性担忧。该结论肯定了Stake最初的总体原则。最后，我还特别关注拯救世界不在Stake或抽样评估人员的名单上：面对全球大流行和气候紧急情况的全球可持续性和环境正义。这种询问过程产生了一种便于评估者使用的促进工具，在此介绍，以支持关于评估者价值观的反思性实践。