Evaluation culture: A definition and analysis of its development within organisations

Abstract

Discussions about decision-making and the kinds of knowledge that could and should be used for this purpose within the workplace have become prominent in current organisational literature. These issues are high on the agenda of the business community, and among not-for-profit agencies.

Research and observation suggests that a good deal of organisational decision-making has, in the past, been based on the judgements of authority figures. It was long assumed that senior managers had the sole right to make decisions, relying on a combination of experience, political know-how and the advice of trusted others in making choices about the present and future of the agencies for which they were responsible.

This situation is changing. Most organisations recognise that important executive-level decisions should involve others besides senior managers, and I have previously argued that evaluators should work cooperatively in providing ‘just in time’ information for leaders (Owen & Lambert 1998). This implies that evidence and empirically based knowledge has the capacity to enhance decision-making and the effectiveness of organisations, for example by making managers and other practitioners more aware of the context in which they operate, understanding the needs of their clients, determining the effects of major initiatives, and being accountable to funding sources.

In this paper, I argue that the creation of an evaluation culture leads to a change and improvement in the ‘mix’ of ‘working knowledge’ that is used by those responsible for applying information to solve organisational problems.

An evaluation culture can be regarded as a commitment to roles for evaluation in decision-making within an organisation (Owen & McDonald 1999). This is systematic enquiry which is initiated and controlled by members of the organisation, and is carried out with the explicit purpose of contributing to the stock of its working knowledge. Enquiry of this nature is not undertaken routinely, but in response to the need for empirically based knowledge to contribute to issues regarded as strategic.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brinkerhoff

1989, ‘Evaluating training in business and industry’, New Directions in Program Evaluation, no. 44 (Winter, 1989), pp. 5–19.

Caldwell

, & Spinks

1992, Leading the self managing school, Falmer Press, London.

Campbell

1994, Whose knowledge is it? Involving teachers in the generation and using of information on educational innovations, USOE/OERI, Washington DC.

Compton

D.W.

, Baizerman

, & Heuftle Stockdill

2002, The art, craft and science of evaluation capacity building, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Cousins

J.B.

, & Earl

L.M.

1992, ‘The case for participatory evaluation’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 397–418.

Guskey

T.R.

1986, ‘Staff development and the process of change’, Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 5–13.

Hall

G.E.

, & Loucks

S.F.

1979, Innovation configuration: analysing the adaptations of innovations, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

Havelock

R.G.

1971, Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge, Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Holbrook

, Ainley

, Bourke

, Owen

J.M.

, McKenzie

, Misson

, & Johnson

2000, ‘Mapping educational research and its impact on Australian schools, in Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, The impact of educational research, Higher Education Division, DETYA, Canberra, pp. 15–278.

10.

Huberman

1994, ‘Research utilization: the state of the art’, Knowledge and Policy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 13–33.

11.

Kaplan

R.S.

, & Norton

D.P.

1996, The balanced scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA.

12.

Kennedy

M.M.

1983, ‘Working knowledge’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 193–211.

13.

Louis

K.S.

1998, ‘Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement: two steps forward, one step back’, in Hargreaves

, Lieberman

, Fullan

, & Hopkins

(eds), International handbook of educational change, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, vol. 2, pp. 1074–1095.

14.

Love

1994, ‘Internal evaluation: building organisations from within’, paper presented at International Conference of the Australasian Evaluation Society, Australasian Evaluation Society, Canberra.

15.

Owen

J.M.

, & Lambert

F.C.

1998, ‘Evaluation and the information needs of organisational Leaders’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 355–365.

16.

Owen

J.M.

, Lambert

F.C.

, & Stringer

1994, ‘Acquiring knowledge of implementation and change: essential for program evaluators?’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 273–294.

17.

Owen

J.M.

, & McDonald

D.E.

1999, ‘Creating an evaluation culture in international development cooperation agencies’, Journal of International Cooperation in Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 41–53.

18.

Owen

J.M.

, & Rogers

1999, Program evaluation: forms and approaches, 2nd edn, Sage, London.

19.

Preskill

, & Torres

R.T.

1996, ‘From evaluation to evaluative enquiry for organisational learning’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November.

20.

Rogers

E.M.

1995, Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn, The Free Press, New York.

21.

Stake

1980, ‘Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation’, in Dockrell

W.B.

, & Hamilton

(eds), Rethinking educational research, Hodder and Stoughton, London, pp. 72–87.

22.

Watkins

1994, ‘A post modern critical theory of research use’, Knowledge and Policy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 55–77.

23.

Wingens

1993, ‘Towards a general utilization metaphor: a systems theory reformulation of the two-communities metaphor’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 27–42.