Public sectors in Europe and elsewhere are the subject of regular, recurrent and systematic evaluations. Evaluations have become institutionalized. This article examines the influence of institutionalized evaluation in higher education in Sweden. In this decentralized education system several kinds of effects of evaluation are detected locally, i.e. at whole-university and at department levels. Through an evaluation process characterized by self-evaluation, external reviews and public reports produced by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, all universities are examined. Governance operates by making universities visible, and thereby promoting comparison and competition, control and self-control. Centrally defined criteria are implemented in the process, via direct contact between the National Agency and university departments, leading to the recentralization of power. Strategies to deal with these evaluations at departmental level are developed and unintended influences, like learning resistance strategies, are highlighted.
Åström, E. (1996) ‘Evaluation: The Panopticon of Pedagogy’, Lärarutbildning och forskning i Umeå [Teacher Education and Research in Umeå). Theme: Evaluation 4: 61–76. Umeå: Umeå University, Board of Teacher Education and Research.
2.
Franke-Wikberg, S. (1990) En strategi för utvärdering och local utveckling av utbildningskvalitet (A Strategy for Evaluation and Local Development of Educational Quality). Working paper 81; Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Education.
3.
Franke-Wikberg, S. and M. Johansson (1975) Utvärdering av undervisning: En problem-analys och några empiriska studier på universitetsnivå (Evaluation of Education: An Analysis and Some Empirical Studies at University Level). Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Education.
4.
Franke-Wikberg, S. and U. P. Lundgren (1980) Att värdera utbildning: Del 1 (To Evaluate Education: Part 1). Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.
5.
Haug, P. (1996) ‘Evaluation of Government Reforms’, Evaluation2: 417–430.
6.
Henry, G. T. and M. M. Mark (2003) ‘Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation's Influence on Attitudes and Actions’, American Journal of Evaluation24(3): 293–314.
7.
Hindess, B. (1995) ‘Liberalism, socialism och demokrati: Variationer på temat politisk styrning’ (Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy: Variations on the Political Governance Theme), in K. Hultqvist and K. Petterson (eds) Foucault: Namnet på en modern vetenskaplig och filosofisk problematik (Foucault: The Name of a Modern Philosophic Problem), pp. 71–85. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
8.
Jackson, P. W. (1968/1990) Life in Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Kirkhart, K. E. (2000) ‘Reconceptualizing Evaluation Use: An Integrated Theory of Influence’, in V. J. Caracelli and H. Preskill (eds) The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use, New Directions for Evaluation, no. 88, pp. 5–23. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Leeuw, F. L. (2002) ‘Evaluation in Europe 2000: Challenges to a Growth Industry’, Evaluation8(1): 5–12.
11.
Mark, M. M. and G. T. Henry (2004) ‘The Mechanisms and Outcomes of Evaluation Influence’, Evaluation10(1): 35–57.
12.
Marra, M. (2000) ‘How Much Does Evaluation Matter? Some Examples on the Utilization of the Evaluation of the World Bank's Anti-Corruption Activities’, Evaluation6(1): 22–36.
13.
Patton, M. Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 3rd edn.London: SAGE.
14.
Patton, M. Q. (1998) ‘Discovering Process Use’, Evaluation4(2): 225–233.
15.
Popkewitz, T. and M. Brennan (1998) ‘Restructuring of Social and Political Theory in Education: Foucault and a Social Epistemology of School Practices’, in T. Popkewitz and M. Brennan (eds) Foucault's Challenge. Discourse, Knowledge and Power in Education, pp. 3–35. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
Rose, N. (1996) ‘Governing “Advanced” Liberal Democracies’, in A. Barry, T. Osborne and N. Rose (eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government, pp. 37–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Rothstein, B. (1994) Vad bör staten göra? Om välfärdsstaten moraliska och politiska logic. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. English tr. Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
18.
Schwandt, T. A. (2003) ‘Linking Evaluation and Education: Enlightenment and Engagement’, in P. Haug and T. A. Schwandt (eds) Evaluating Educational Reform: Scandinavian Perspectives, pp. 169–188. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
19.
Segerholm, C. (2001) ‘National Evaluations as Governing Instruments: How do they Govern?’, Evaluation7(4): 427–438.
20.
Segerholm, C. and E. Åström (2003) ‘Evaluation as Seductive Governance or National Assessment as Departmental Self-Control: An Example from the Swedish Higher Education System’, paper presented at the American Evaluation Association conference, 5–8 Nov., Reno, US.
21.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2001a) Swedish Universities and University Colleges: Short Version of Annual Report 2001. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
22.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2001b) From Quality Audit to Quality Assessment. Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2001: 9R. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
23.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2001c) National Review of Subjects and Programmes in Sweden. Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2001: 11R. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
24.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2002) How did Things Turn out? The National Agency's Quality Audits and Evaluations 2001. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
25.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2003a) Förändringar med anledning av det nya kvalitetsgranskningssystemet? En sammanställning av svar från kvalitetsansvariga och kvalitetssamordnare (Changes Due to the New Programme of Quality Assessment of Academic Subjects and Programmes: A Summary of Responses from Quality Managers at the Universities). Regnr 643–5046–02. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
26.
SNAHE (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2003b) How did Things Turn out? The National Agency's Quality Audits and Evaluations 2002. Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2003: 25R. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.
27.
The Hidden Curriculum (2004). Available at: http://www.sociology.org.uk/tece1tl.htm (accessed 8 September 2004).
28.
Vedung, E. (1991) Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Tr. as Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
29.
Weiss, C. H. (ed.) (1977) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
30.
Weiss, C. (1988) ‘Evaluation for Decisions: Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?’, Evaluation Practice9(1): 5–19.
31.
Weiss, C. (1991) ‘Evaluation Research in the Political Context: Sixteen Years and Four Administrations Later’, in M. W. McLaughlin and D. C. Phillips (eds) Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century, pp. 211–231. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
