A large government market has developed in evaluation over the past few decades. Governments let contracts to conduct evaluation studies, and these contracts shape the studies. Such contracting does not follow the idealized image of open markets. Rather, a few firms conduct most studies because of the dynamics of the contracting process. If we are to have honest, unbiased evaluations, evaluation ethics must take these market factors into consideration. The conditions under which evaluations are produced are as important as House how evaluation results are used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, G.S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Becker, G.S. (1993). Human capital. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
3.
Boston, J. (1994). Purchasing policy advice: The limits to contracting out. Governance, 7(1), 1-30.
4.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., Wash, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.
5.
Chelimsky, E. (1992). Rebuilding capacity. In C. Wye and R. Sonnichsen (Eds.). Evaluation in the federal government: Changes, trends, and opportunities. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 55, San Francisco : Jossey Bass. 91-96.
6.
Cuttance, P. ( 1995). Education evaluation: Integrating best practice and performance indicators to benchmark the performance of a school system . Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 42-52.
7.
Department of Finance. (1994). Doing evaluations: A practical guide. Canberra, Aus: Department of Finance.
8.
Elvins, R. (1995). Evaluation—Victoria: An update. Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 26-27.
9.
Elvins, R. (N. D.). Comparison of evaluation guidelines. Melbourne, Victoria: Department of Treasury.
10.
Funnell, S. (1994). Developing a framework for contracting out. IRR Conference on Program Evaluation, April 21-22.
11.
Funnell, S. (1995). Establishing a framework to meet the latest competitive policies. Paper presented to the AIC Conference , March 31.
12.
Gore, A. (1993). Creating a government that works better and costs less. The Report of the National Performance ReviewNew York: Plume.
13.
Henkel, M. (1991). Government, evaluation and change. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
14.
Highett, N. (1995). Update of program evaluation: Initiatives in practice: State perspectives. EvaluationNews and Comment.4(1), 23-24.
15.
Hounslow, B.The evaluation ethos: A community sector perspective. AIC Conferences.
16.
House, E.R. (1993). Professional evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
House, E.R. & Care, N.S. (1979). Fair evaluation agreement. Educational Theory. 29(3), 159-169. Reprinted in E.R. House (1980), Evaluating with Validity, Sage Publications.
18.
House, E.R., Haug, C., and Norris, N. (1996). Producing evaluations in large bureaucracies. Evaluation.2(2), 135-150.
19.
House, E.R. (1995). Putting things together coherently: Logic and justice. In D. M. Fournier (Ed.). Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 68, 33-48.
20.
Ife, J. ( 1995). Paradigms lost: The disjunction between analysis and practice. National Conference, Australian Association of Social Workers, Launceston.
21.
Johnston, C. (1995). A public interest perspective on National Competition Policy. Paper presented to IIR Conference, Sydney, Feb 13-14.
22.
Kettl, D.F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets . Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution .
23.
Kettl, D.F. (1994). Reinventing government? Appraising the National Performance ReviewWashington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.
24.
Kettl, D.F. and Dilulio, Jr., J.J. (1995). Inside the reinvention machine: Appraising government reform. Washington, D. C. : Brookings Institution.
25.
Love, A. (1995a). My impressions of OZ and NZ and evaluation there . Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 3-8.
26.
Love. A. (1995b). Internal evaluation: Building organizations from within. Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 10-13.
27.
Norris, N. (1993). The contractual control of policy and programme evaluation. Norwich, UK: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
28.
O'Laughlin, M. & Mackaway, J. (1995). Developments in program evaluation n the Western Australian public sector. Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 24-26.
29.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
Perkin, H. (1989). The rise of professional society: England since 1880. London: Routledge.
31.
Pettigrew, M. (1993). Coming to terms with research: the contract business . Norwich, UK: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
32.
Rogers, P., Hawthorne, G., & Wheller, R. (1995). Primary school drug education: An evaluation of life education in Victoria. Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 29-36.
33.
Rose, K.P. (1995). Initiatives in practice: The Queensland perspective . Evaluation News and Comment.4(1), 14-17.
34.
Scriven, M. (1995a). Evaluation consulting. Evaluation Practice.16(1), 47-57.
35.
Scriven, M. (1995b). What should a nonprofit pay an evaluation consultant ? Pt. Reyes, CA: Evaluation and Development Group.
36.
Sharp, C.A. (1995). Update of program evaluation: South Australia . Evaluation News and Comment, 4(1), 18-22.
37.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine . New York: Basic Books.
38.
Wargo, M.J. (1994). The impact of the President's reinvention plan on Congress. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 63-72.
39.
Williams, B. (1994). Zen and the art of contract maintenance. Public Sector, 17, 1.
40.
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
