Evaluation utilization is discussed in this article from an argumentative perspective. Rather than regarding evaluative information as indisputable knowledge, it is viewed as a collection of arguments, which can be debated, accepted and disputed. Approaching from this perspective, evaluations consist of different kinds of statements, which become matters of individual interpretation, collective argumentation and decision making in interactional contexts. Subsequently, a general framework for studying argumentation in evaluation will be proposed. The argumentative nature of evaluation utilization is then illustrated with empirical material from evaluations of government agencies in Finland. The article concludes by discussing the implications of the evaluation context for argumentation: two dimensions, the degree of pressure for change and the relation between conflict and consensus, seem to profoundly affect the role evaluations play within the management environment of the agencies.
Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bogason, P. and T.A.J. Toonen (1998) `Introduction: Networks in Public Administration' , Public Administration76(2): 205-27.
3.
Brockriede, W. (1974) `Rhetorical Criticism as Argument', The Quarterly Journal of Speech60: 165-74.
4.
Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen (1972) `A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice' , Administrative Science Quarterly17: 1-25.
5.
Dryzek, J. (1993) `Policy Analysis and Planning: From Science to Argument', in F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press.
6.
Feldman, M. and J. March (1981) `Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol' , Administrative Science Quarterly26(2): 171-86.
7.
Fischer, F. and J. Forester (eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press.
8.
Forss, K., C. Rebien and J. Carlsson (2001) `Process Use of Evaluations: Types of Use that Precede Lessons Learned and Feedback', Evaluation8(1): ??-??.
9.
Fournier, D. (1995) `Establishing Evaluative Conclusions: A Distinction Between General and Working Logic', New Directions for Evaluation68: 15-32.
10.
Fournier, D. and N. Smith (1993) `Clarifying the Merits of Argument in Evaluation Practice', Evaluation and Program Planning17(1): 315-23.
11.
House, E. (1980) Evaluating with Validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Huff, A.S. (1998) `Politics and Argument as a Means of Coping with Ambiguity and Change', in L. Pondy,R. Boland and H. Thomas (eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons.
13.
Johnson, R.B. (1998) `Toward a Theoretical Model of Evaluation Utilization' , Evaluation and Program Planning21(1): 93-110.
14.
Leviton, L. and E. Hughes (1981) `Research on the Utilization of Evaluation. A Review and Synthesis', Evaluation Review5(4): 525-48.
15.
Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
Marsh, D. (ed.) (1998) Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press.
17.
Ormala, E. (1994) `Impact Assessment. European Experience of Qualitative Methods and Practices', Evaluation Review18(1): 41-51.
18.
Owen, J. and P. Rogers (1999) Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches. London: Sage.
19.
Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Patton, M.Q. (1998) `Discovering Process Use', Evaluation4(2): 225-33.
21.
Perelman, C. (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. London : University of Notre Dame Press.
22.
Sabatier, P. (1988) `An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein', Policy Sciences21: 129-68.
23.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1989) The Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities . New York: Plenum.
24.
Scriven, M. (1991) Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Scriven, M. (1995) `The Logic of Evaluation and Evaluation Practice' , New Directions for Evaluation68: 49-70.
26.
Sillince, J. (1999) `The Organizational Setting, Use and Institutionalization of Argumentation Repertoires', Journal of Management Studies36(6): 795-830.
27.
Tompkins, E., P. Tompkins and G. Cheney (1989) `Organizations as Arguments: Discovering, Expressing, and Analyzing the Premises for Decision', Journal of Management Systems1(2): 35-48.
28.
Valovirta, V. (2000) Kokemuksia valtion virastojen ja laitosten arvioinnista. [Experiences from Institutional Evaluation of Government Agencies.]Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.
29.
Van der Knaap, P. (1995) `Policy Evaluation and Learning. Feedback, Enlightenment or Argumentation?', Evaluation1(2): 189-216.
30.
Vedung, E. (1991) Public Policy and Programme Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers .
31.
Weick, K. (1995) Sense-making in Organizations. London: Sage.
32.
Weiss, C. and M. Bucuvalas (1980) `Truth Tests and Utility Tests: Decision-makers' Frame of Reference for Social Science Research', American Sociological Review45(2): 302-13.
