The Power and Paradoxes of Evaluation Systems – Increasing Use but Impeding Change

N. Andersen
{"title":"The Power and Paradoxes of Evaluation Systems – Increasing Use but Impeding Change","authors":"N. Andersen","doi":"10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, evaluation systems have become increasingly embedded within public sector organisations. This trend of systematising and institutionalising evaluation activities has generally been perceived as a way to increase the use – and thus the power - of evaluations. However, this article argues that the power of evaluation systems is of a more complicated nature than merely increasing the uptake of evaluative knowledge. By applying the concept of “contestability differential” to a concrete example of an evaluation system within the Danish employment services, it is shown how the institutionalisation of an asymmetric power relation between evaluation system and evaluand creates inherent paradoxes. \nThe analysis shows how the strong contestability differential between evaluation system and evaluand – necessary for securing the influence of evaluation systems - hinges on the permanence, organisational embeddedness and epistemological fixation of such systems. However, these same elements simultaneously also limit the usefulness of the evaluative knowledge and the capability of the evaluation system to invoke radical change and development in the evaluand. \nThe article thus highlights an inherent paradox of evaluation systems in that they are simultaneously increasing and decreasing the power of evaluations.","PeriodicalId":31772,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In recent years, evaluation systems have become increasingly embedded within public sector organisations. This trend of systematising and institutionalising evaluation activities has generally been perceived as a way to increase the use – and thus the power - of evaluations. However, this article argues that the power of evaluation systems is of a more complicated nature than merely increasing the uptake of evaluative knowledge. By applying the concept of “contestability differential” to a concrete example of an evaluation system within the Danish employment services, it is shown how the institutionalisation of an asymmetric power relation between evaluation system and evaluand creates inherent paradoxes. The analysis shows how the strong contestability differential between evaluation system and evaluand – necessary for securing the influence of evaluation systems - hinges on the permanence, organisational embeddedness and epistemological fixation of such systems. However, these same elements simultaneously also limit the usefulness of the evaluative knowledge and the capability of the evaluation system to invoke radical change and development in the evaluand. The article thus highlights an inherent paradox of evaluation systems in that they are simultaneously increasing and decreasing the power of evaluations.
评估系统的力量和悖论——增加使用但阻碍改变
近年来,评估系统越来越多地嵌入到公共部门组织中。这种使评价活动系统化和制度化的趋势一般被认为是增加评价的使用- -从而增加评价的力量- -的一种方式。然而,本文认为,评估系统的力量比仅仅增加评估知识的吸收具有更复杂的性质。通过将“可竞争性差异”的概念应用于丹麦就业服务中评价制度的一个具体例子,它显示了评价制度和被评价者之间不对称权力关系的制度化如何造成固有的矛盾。分析显示了评估系统和评估之间的强大的可争议性差异——确保评估系统的影响所必需的——如何取决于这些系统的持久性、组织嵌入性和认识论固定。然而,这些相同的因素同时也限制了评价知识的有用性和评价系统在评价中引起根本变化和发展的能力。因此,本文强调了评价制度固有的悖论,即它们同时增加和减少了评价的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信