Evaluation research mixes administrative objectives with social scientific aims.This article distinguishes between three types of evaluation research based on the role of the evaluator. First, social engineers seek mechanisms that have objectively measurable outcomes. Second, programme promoters act as counselling resources for community developers or other stakeholders. Instead of these two traditional roles, this article considers a third type of evaluation which is based on the role of the evaluator as a critical interpreter, embodied in the sociological intervention approach. The role of the critical interpreter is illustrated by two cases where evaluation has focused on the policy of devolved responsibility combined with community-based prevention.The interventions took place in very different settings: a large-scale, long-lasting evaluation of a large and expensive policy-testing programme and an independent, voluntary and brief evaluation of small-scale, local groups. The comparison of these demonstrates that the context of evaluation determines the more specific type of a critical interpretation.
Abma, T. (1997) `Sharing Power, Facing Ambiguity', Advances in Program Evaluation, vol. 3, pp. 105—19. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
2.
Abma, T. (2001) `Opening Thoughts', Evaluation7(2): 155—63.
3.
Adelman, C. (1996) `Anything Goes: Evaluation and Relativism', Evaluation2(3): 291—305.
4.
Bauman, Z. (1990) Thinking Sociologically. Oxford : Blackwell.
5.
Beck, U. (1994) `The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization', in U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, pp. 1—55. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6.
Bernstein, R. (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Clarke, J., S. Gewirtz, G. Hughes and J. Humphrey (2000) `Guarding the Public Interest? Auditing Public Services', in J. Clarke, S. Gewirtz and E. McLaughlin (eds) New Managerialism, New Welfare?, pp. 250—66. London: SAGE.
9.
Delaney, F.G. (1994) `Muddling through the Middle Ground: Theoretical Concerns in Intersectoral Collaboration and Health Promotion', Health Promotion International9(3): 217—25.
10.
Eräsaari, R. (1998) `The Displacement of Expertise: The Reflexions Elite Meets with Life Politics', in S. Hänninen (ed.) Displacement of Social Policies, pp. 88—116. University of Jyväskylä: SoPhi.
11.
Eräsaari, R. (2003) `Open-Context Expertise', in A. Bamme, G. Getzinger and B. Wieser (eds) Yearbook 2003 of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society, pp. 31—65. Munich: Profil.
12.
Fetterman, D. (1997) `Empowerment Evaluation and Accreditation in Higher Education', in E. Chelimsky and W. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook, pp. 381—95. London: SAGE.
13.
Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: SAGE.
14.
Holmila, M. (2003) `The Evaluation of the Metropolitan Project: Process and Causality', Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, English suppl. 20(1): 81—9.
15.
Määttä, M. (2005) `Multi-Agency Teams: A Means for Good Youth Services? ', in Hakkarainen, Hoikkala and Laine (eds) Beyond Health Literacy: Youth Cultures, Prevention and Policy, pp. 203—18. Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Network.
16.
Morabito, S. (2002) `Evaluator Roles and Strategies for Expanding Evaluation Process Influence', American Journal of Evaluation23(3): 321—30.
17.
Newman, J. (2000) `Beyond the New Public Management? Modernizing Public Services', in J. Clarke, S. Gewirtz and E. McLaughlin (eds) New Managerialism, New Welfare?, pp. 45—61. London: Open University Press and SAGE.
18.
O'Sullivan, R. (2004) Practicing Evaluation. A Collaborative Approach . London: SAGE.
19.
Pawson, R. (2002) `Evidence-Based Policy: The Promise of “Realist Synthesis”', Evaluation8(3): 340—58.
20.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) RealisticEvaluation. London: SAGE.
21.
Popper, K. (1974) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 5th edn. Originally published in 1962. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
Rantala, K. (2004) `Drug Prevention as Coordination: The Vicious Circle of Relegating Responsibility', Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy11(5): 367—79.
23.
Rantala, K. and P. Sulkunen (2003) `The Communitarian Preventive Paradox: Preventing Substance Use without the Substance', Critical Social Policy23(4): 477—97.
24.
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Scriven, M. (1980) The Logic of Evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.
26.
Scriven, M. (1997) `Truth and Objectivity in Evaluation', in E. Chelimsky and W. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook , pp. 477—500. London: SAGE.
27.
Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
28.
Sulkunen, P. (1997) `Ethical Issues and Alcohol Policy in Saturated Society', Addictions92(2): 1117—22.
29.
Sulkunen, P., M. Määttä and K. Rantala (2003) `Translating Back: Evaluation as Sociological Intervention ', Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, English suppl. 20(1): 161—8.
30.
Sulkunen, P., K. Rantala and M. Määttä (2004) `The Ethics of Not Taking a Stand: Dilemmas of Drug and Alcohol Prevention in a Consumer Society. A Case Study', International Journal of Drug Policy15(5—6): 427—34.
31.
Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Vedung, E. (2000) Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers.
33.
Warpenius, K. (2003) `From Project Chaos to Flexible Networking — a Utopia? The Establishment of a National Network of Municipal Substance Abuse Prevention Professionals', Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs , English suppl. 20(1): 125—9.
