Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Questions concerning influence are essential in the field of evaluation. This article argues for a dual perspective in this discussion. Theories of influence are combined with the idea of The Evaluation Society, and together these create a broad perspective on the use of evaluations and their possible impact. From this dual perspective, evaluation is recognized both as a method for planning and development and as an independent societal phenomenon. Norwegian participation in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is used to illustrate the essence of this dual perspective and how it can yield a more complete understanding of the complexity of evaluation impact.

Keywords

evaluation influence evaluation use evaluation society evidence-based policy Programme for International Student Assessment social betterment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albæk

(1988) Fra sandhed til information: evalueringsforskning i USA før og nu. København: Akademisk Forlag.

Alkin

Taut

(2003) Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation 29: 1–12.

Bachmann

Haug

Myklebust

(2010) Med rett til å prestere. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 299–317.

Baird

Isaacs

Johnson

et al . (2011) Policy Effects of PISA. Oxford: Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment.

Braeken

(2014) Et nyansert syn på PISA. Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo. Available at: https://issuu.com/shanecol/docs/forsknings-bro-web?e=8763060/9855158 (accessed 6 May 2017).

Bromark

(2014) Voksne ville blitt stresset av ungdoms skolehverdag. Klikk.no. Available at: http://www.klikk.no/foreldre/skolebarn/ungdom-og-stress-1488938.ece (accessed 9 November 2016).

Carden

Alkin

(2012) Evaluation roots: An international perspective. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation 8(17): 102–18.

Dahler-Larsen

(2012) The Evaluation Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Department of Teacher Education and School Research (ILS) (n.d.) F. O. E. S, University of Oslo. Available at: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/prosjekt-sider/pisa/resultater/ (accessed 9 November 2016).

10.

Eggen

(2010) PISAs gyldighet blant skoleledere og lærere. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 281–97.

11.

Eklöf

Pavešič

Grønmo

(2014) A cross-national comparison of reported effort and mathematics performance in TIMSS advanced. Applied Measurement in Education 27: 31–45.

12.

Elstad

(2010) PISA i norsk offentlighet: politisk teknologi for styring og bebreidelsesmanøvrering. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 100–21.

13.

Elstad

Sivesind

(2010) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl.

14.

Ertesvåg

(2015) Lærere fikk nok av prøvepress – sluttet i Oslo-skolen. VG, 24 September. Available at: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/goaJ9/laerere-fikk-nok-av-proevepress-sluttet-i-oslo-skolen

15.

Ertesvåg

(2016) Barneprofessor bekymret for skolestress: Stadig flere søker hjelp. VG, 11 October. Available at: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/yPgje/barneprofessorer-bekymret-for-skolestress-stadig-flere-soeker-hjelp

16.

Gustafsson

(2008) Effects of international comparative studies on educational quality on the quality of educational research. European Educational Research Journal 7(1): 1–17.

17.

Hanberger

(2014) What PISA intends to and can possibly achieve: A critical programme theory analysis. European Educational Research Journal 13(2): 167–80.

18.

Hansen

(2013) Det skjeve tårnet: PISA. Available at: http://www.forumnyskole.org/det-skjeve-tarnet-pisa/ (accessed 9 November 2016).

19.

Haug

(2010) Desentralisering og skoleprestasjoner. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 246–55.

20.

Haugen

(2010) For en konservativ modernisering av utdanning? In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 69–80.

21.

Heiliwell

Layard

Sachs

(2017) World Happiness Report 2016 Update, vol. 1. NewYork: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

22.

Helljesen

Grønli

Omvik

(2013) PISA-sjefen mener norsk skole har et stort, skjult problem [PISA boss believes Norwegian school has a large, hidden problem]. NRK. Available at: https://www.nrk.no/valg2013/pisa-sjef_-_norges-store-problem- 1.11186771

23.

Helsvig

(n.d.) En linje i det norske Kunnskaps-departementets historie 1945–2015. Available at: http://www.uddannelseshistorie.dk/images/pdfer/2015-kim-helsvig-moderniseringsagent.pdf

24.

Henry

Mark

(2003) Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation 24: 293–314.

25.

Herbert

(2014) Researching evaluation influence: A review of the literature. Evaluation Review 38: 388–419.

26.

Hernes

(2008) The interface between social research and policy making. European Sociological Review 24: 257–65.

27.

Hopfenbeck

Kjærnsli

(2016) Students’ test motivation in PISA: The case of Norway. The Curriculum Journal 27: 406–22.

28.

Jakhelln

Welstad

(2011) PISA-undersøkelsene – en dreining av verdigrunnlaget i norsk skole uten lovhjemmel? Lov Og Rett 50. Available at: https://www.idunn.no/lor/2011/05/art04

29.

Johansen

(2014) Vi opplever hardt press for å frita elever. Dagbladet, 6 December. Available at: https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/vi-opplever-hardt-press-for-a-frita-elever/60896189

30.

Kirkhart

(2000) Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation 2000: 5–23.

31.

Kjærnsli

Jensen

(2016) 1 PISA 2015–gjennomføring og noen sentrale resultater. In: Kjærnsli

Jensen

(eds) norske elevers kompetanse i naturfag, matematikk og lesing i PISA 2015. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 11–31.

32.

Kulbrandstad

(2010) Leseopplæring på ungdomstrinnet før og etter PISA 2000. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 176–198.

33.

Langfeldt

Birkeland

(2010) PISA i lys av styringsteori. In: Elstad

Sivesind

(eds) PISA: sannheten om skolen? Oslo: Universitetsforl, 83–97.

34.

Lindgren

(2014) Nya utvärderingsmonstret: om kvalitetsmätning i den offentliga sektorn. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

35.

Mark

Henry

(2004) The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation 10: 35–57.

36.

Mark

Henry

(2013) Multiple routes: Evaluation, assisted sensemaking, and pathways to betterment. In: Alkin

(ed.) Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists’ Views and Influences. Sage Publications, 144–156.

37.

Marsdal

(2011) Kunnskapsbløffen. Oslo: Forlaget Manifest.

38.

Midtbø

Stavik

(2009) PISA får for stor plass. Bedre Skole 1: 20–24.

39.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2011) Internasjonale studer om norsk skole [International study on Norwegian schooling]. Available at: https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/tall-og-forskning/rapporter/temanotat/internasjonale_studier_om_norsk_skole_temanotat.pdf

40.

Nutley

Walter

Davies

(2007) Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.

41.

OECD (1) (2016) Available at: http://www.oecd.org/about/whatwedoandhow/ (accessed 9 November 2016).

42.

OECD (2) (2016) Available at: https://www.oecd.org/about/ (accessed 9 November 2016).

43.

OECD (4) (2016) Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm (accessed 9 November 2016).

44.

Patton

(1998) Discovering process use. Evaluation 4(2): 225–33.

45.

Power

(1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46.

Rey

(2010) The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems. In: Stoney

(ed). Beyond Lisbon 2010: Perspectives from Research and Development for Education Policy in Europe (CIDREE Yearbook 2010). Slough: NFER, 137–57.

47.

Sandvik

Grønli

Myklebust

(2016) SP vil melde Norge ut av PISA. NRK. Available at: https://www.nrk.no/norge/sp-vil-melde-norge-ut-av-pisa-1.13185897

48.

Sarwar

(2013) Forsker: Skoler fritar svake elever for å blåse opp resultatene. Dagbladet, 15 January. Available at: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/0mMRE/forsker-skoler-fritar-svake-elever-for-aa-blaase-opp-resultatene

49.

Saunders

(2012) The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach. Evaluation 18(4): 421–36.

50.

Skårderud

(2016) Gjør det bedre, har det verre. Klassekampen, 7 December. Available at: https://www.klassekampen.no/article/20161207/PLUSS/161209826

51.

Stengers

(1999) For en demokratisering av vitenskapene, vol. 4. Oslo: Spartacus.

52.

Toft

(2008) På krigsstigen mot PISA. Uniforum, 5 March. Available at: https://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2008/03/paa-krigsstigen-mot-pisa.html

53.

Ubøe

(2015) Et samfunn der alle er tapere. Bergens Tidende (BT), 16 February. Available at: https://www.bt.no/btmeninger/kronikk/i/OE8wl/Et-samfunn-der-alle-er-tapere

54.

Weiss

(1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–31.

55.

Weiss

Murphy-Graham

Birkeland

(2005) An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect DARE. American Journal of Evaluation 26: 12–30.

Evaluation influence: Method and societal phenomenon

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References