Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgement -- Contents -- Chapter 1: The Causality Syndrome -- The Causality Syndrome Unpacked: System 1 and System 2 -- The Institutionalization of The Causality Syndrome -- Create More Space -- References -- Chapter 2: Twenty-five Questions -- Q1. Is Causality a Useful Concept in Social Science? -- Q2. Is Causation the Most Important and Honorable Task in the Social Sciences? -- Q3. Are All Great Social Scientists Famous for Their Causal Analysis? -- Q4. Is Causality Only One Thing? -- Q5. Can You Only Ask One Type of Question About Causality? -- Q6. Is Methodology Prior to Paradigms? -- Q7. Do Methodological Rules Precede Scientific Practice? -- Q8. Is Scientific Progress a Result of Compliance with Methodological Rules? -- Q9. Will Social Science Cleanse Itself of Ideology and Normativity, if it Restricts Itself to Causal Analysis? -- Q10. Does Causation Always Require a Counterfactual? -- Q11. If You Compare Two Groups, Is it then Less Important What the Comparison Is About? -- Q12. Does Reciprocal Causality Mean You Have Not Nailed Genuine Causality? -- Q13. Does the Quality of a Study Depend on Its Place in a Hierarchy of Evidence? -- Q14. Is the Randomized Controlled Trial a Clincher, and All Other Kinds of Studies Just Vouchers? -- Q15. Is a Study Better, the More Control You Have over the Situation? -- Q16. Will Causal Knowledge Accumulate Over Time? -- Q17. Does the Evidence Hierarchy Only Produce Knowledge? -- Q18. Are the Rules for Causal Inference the Same Regardless of the Practical Situation? -- Q19. Can You Sell Your Study by Pretending that Its Design Is Better than it Actually Is? -- Q20. Is Your Career in Jeopardy, if You Do Not Comply with The Causality Syndrome? -- Q21. Are People Primarily Interested in Outcomes? -- Q22. Do We Spend Most of Our Lives Thinking About the Causal Net Effect of X on Y?.

This book offers a critique of the present status of the concept of causality in the social sciences. "The Causality Syndrome" consists of a belief in causal studies as more important than other studies, a narrow definition of causality, and rules of thumb regarding how to make causal claims. The book argues that the present dominance of this syndrome has considerable downsides and presents a challenge to social science. The book dissects the many interconnected ideas which undergird this syndrome and offers an intellectual home for advanced students, researchers and others who are concerned about the present dominance of The Causality Syndrome. The book critically discusses whether "causality" deserves the central position in social science that its advocates desire. The text shows how methodological rules about causal inference are used to protect causal studies from critique, even in situations where these rules are not followed. It is argued that institutionalization of these rules as symbols of good and trustworthy social science is highly problematic and comes with a price. One of the casualties of causality is that there is less motivation to study complex and pressing issues in society which do not lend themselves to causal study designs. The sections are short. The argument unfolds in a lively, engaged form with examples from many fields, including public health, evaluation and organizational studies. The case examples include classical experiments as well as contemporary research, e.g. studies of the effectiveness of restrictions targeting the spread of coronavirus. Peter Dahler-Larsen is Professor at the Department for Political Science at University of Copenhagen, Denmark, where he is the leader of the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Measurement and Effects (CREME).

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Foreword to the English Edition -- Introduction. The Evaluation Wave: From Mystery to Analysis -- 1. Organizational Understandings -- 2. Evaluation in the Institutionalized Organization -- 3. Modernity and Its "Evaluation Imaginary" -- 4. Reflexive Modernity -- 5. Evaluation in Reflexive Modernity -- 6. Audit Society, Neorigorism, and Evaluation Machines -- 7. The Critique of Evaluation Machines -- Epilogue. Perspectives for Evaluation -- References -- Index

One of the most dominant trends in the field of evaluation in recent years is the institutionalization of evaluation under headlines such as "evaluation culture," "evaluation policy," and "evaluation systems." There has been less interest in how evaluation systems can be changed, modified, or improved, not to mention deinstitutionalized, if necessary. Can a variety of stakeholders deliberate about the consequences of an evaluation system, and can it lead to policy change? A case study of a ministerial advisory group on national tests in Denmark shows how specific challenges were dealt with, such as the design of the deliberative process, the potential dominance of experts, and the distinction between technical-evaluative and practical-political arguments, and how these maneuvers paved the way for policy change. Based on the case study, the article discusses the prospects for democratic deliberation about evaluation systems.

Given ongoing changes in the social structuration of evaluation, the circulation of evaluative information is becoming an increasingly important factor in the production of constitutive effects of evaluation. There is power in the circulation of evaluative information, and therefore also power in attempts to regulate or curb it. Based on one case exemplifying massive circulation of evaluative information (Google Scholar), and one with very limited circulation (workplace assessments), we show how infrastructure, interests and institutional rules are useful analytical entry points into studies of circulation. The paper proposes a new theoretical and empirical attention to circulation of evaluative information as a fragile and contested phenomenon.

Evaluability assessment is a diagnostic and prescriptive tool which helps evaluators determine whether evaluation is appropriate in a given situation. Thus, evaluation is understood as a situational good. Today, however, evaluability assessment is no longer particularly popular. Mandatory, comprehensive and repetitive evaluation systems are gaining ground in public administration supported by general social, political and managerial norms and values, indicating that evaluation is believed to be a universal good. Can a form of evaluability assessment be re-vitalized in order to pave the way for a more modest, more reflexive, and more context-sensitive belief in evaluation? The article offers a specific list of items in an updated version of evaluability assessment, and concludes with a discussion of the limitations of such approach.

Evaluability assessment is a diagnostic and prescriptive tool which helps evaluators determine whether evaluation is appropriate in a given situation. Thus, evaluation is understood as a situational good. Today, however, evaluability assessment is no longer particularly popular. Mandatory, comprehensive and repetitive evaluation systems are gaining ground in public administration supported by general social, political and managerial norms and values, indicating that evaluation is believed to be a universal good. Can a form of evaluability assessment be re-vitalized in order to pave the way for a more modest, more reflexive, and more context-sensitive belief in evaluation? The article offers a specific list of items in an updated version of evaluability assessment, and concludes with a discussion of the limitations of such approach.

Evalueringsbølgen og dens forskellige former afspejler skiftende normer, værdier og forventninger i samfundet. Henholdsvis "refleksiv modernitet" og "The Audit Society" ("Revisionssamfundet") tilbydes som to analytiske samfundstyper, der hver svarer til bestemte forestillinger om evaluering, og der argumenteres for, at der har været en stigende betoning af sidstnævnte i de senere år. Denne udvikling forklares, og en kritisk diskussion af dens konsekvenser gennemføres. Et af de vigtigste temaer i denne diskussion er et spændingsforhold mellem på den ene side stærke ønsker om forudsigelighed, entydighed og kompleksitetsreduktion i de aktuelle evalueringsmodellers måde at fremelske ansvarlighed på og på den anden side stor kompleksitet i de faktiske problemstillinger, som evalueringsmodellerne konfronteres med i den sociale virkelighed.