Suchergebnisse

The concept of framing implies that policy issues can be viewed from different perspectives. The choice of perspective influences the way societal phenomena are understood and the solutions to the perceived problems, as well as the perspectives focused on when evaluating these solutions. Framing thus involves power, and framing in relation to evaluation involves the power to influence production of public knowledge and, subsequently, policy decisions informed by this evidence. While the role of framing in policymaking seems to be a topic of increasing academic interest, thus far evaluation literature has not reflected this trend. Evaluation still tends to be perceived as an objective external voice, providing the political–administrative system with neutral evidence. This paper challenges this dominant image of evaluation and seeks to contribute to clarifying the complex relationship between framing, evaluation and power. ; publishedVersion

Based on interviews and survey data, this article examines the role of civil servants in the process of external evaluations. Traditionally the political–administrative system and the research sector have been seen as worlds apart, their differences hindering the use of evidence in policy, creating a need for knowledge brokering. However, there are perspectives taking the opposite position, recognizing the mutual influence of policy and research in the coproduction of knowledge. This study suggests that both perspectives are relevant and together could provide a better point of departure for understanding the production and use of evidence in policy.

Based on interviews and survey data, this article examines the role of civil servants in the process of external evaluations. Traditionally the political–administrative system and the research sector have been seen as worlds apart, their differences hindering the use of evidence in policy, creating a need for knowledge brokering. However, there are perspectives taking the opposite position, recognizing the mutual influence of policy and research in the coproduction of knowledge. This study suggests that both perspectives are relevant and together could provide a better point of departure for understanding the production and use of evidence in policy. ; This study was funded by departmental resources. ; publishedVersion

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.

AbstractOver the last decades, evidence‐based public policy has emerged as a concept and field of research, presenting methodological approaches from the natural sciences as the ideal. However, empirical and interdisciplinary research on the relationship between methodological approaches and policy impact remains scarce. The aim is to investigate whether the impact of evaluations on development of new ideas and policies depends on methodological approaches. Data are drawn from a survey among policy‐makers (n = 222) in six Norwegian agencies. Applying linear regression models, we analyse whether 'evaluations provide new ideas and perspectives' and if 'evaluations play a major role as a foundation for policy‐making', and if these aspects depend on the reason for conducting the evaluation and the type of data collection. The civil servants report strong belief in evaluations' impact on policy and development of new ideas; however, this is more or less independent of type of methodological approaches. Exceptions are evaluation using observational data, interviews, or case studies and evaluations conducted with the intention of obtaining new knowledge. The article brings new empirical knowledge regarding the way different methodological approaches contribute to the usefulness of evaluations. Supporting the criticism of a rigid understanding of the meaning of evidence.